I have a mate...

[fgpsi]

I have a mate that has a VE SS with a tune and exhaust. Only made 220 rwkws on the dyno, this guy thinks his SS is the ducks guts (thinks it'll do low 12s) and thinks it will beat any Ford/FPV without any issues.

Numerous times I've told him that a stock F6 or even FG XR6T would eat him for brekky but he just won't listen. Drives it like a flog too, always flat stick.

Thought it would be a good opportunity for you guys to share your stories about that delusional mate you might have who does the same thing..

[Cashie]

220kW sounds a bit low, generally about 250-270kW with exhaust and tune in my experience.
The turbo 6 is certainly likely to show him up.

[fgpsi]

Originally Posted by Cashie

220kW sounds a bit low, generally about 250-270kW with exhaust and tune in my experience.

Yeah I thought so too but it's an ex cop car also thinks it's quicker due to the cops modifying it haha

[commonrails]

Originally Posted by Cashie

220kW sounds a bit low, generally about 250-270kW with exhaust and tune in my experience.
The turbo 6 is certainly likely to show him up.

Everyone know's that it's 220kW without a chev badge and 250-270kW with a chev badge.

[LoudPipes]

A VE SS achieving only 220rwkw from an exhaust and tune?

Even when the motors are new and tight they pull a minimum of 270rwkw.

I’d be asking for my money back quick smart, it sounds like a bad tune and I’d be taking it to a real tuner in case it drops its guts everywhere.

[fgpsi]

Originally Posted by LoudPipes

A VE SS achieving only 220rwkw from an exhaust and tune?

Even when the motors are new and tight they pull a minimum of 270rwkw.

I’d be asking for my money back quick smart, it sounds like a bad tune and I’d be taking it to a real tuner in case it drops its guts everywhere.

Vcm did it

[chookaradley]

Originally Posted by LoudPipes

A VE SS achieving only 220rwkw from an exhaust and tune?

Even when the motors are new and tight they pull a minimum of 270rwkw.

I’d be asking for my money back quick smart, it sounds like a bad tune and I’d be taking it to a real tuner in case it drops its guts everywhere.

270kw at the rears new? no way. 220kw after a tune sounds about right for one of those ****boxes

[stevefreestyle]

Originally Posted by LoudPipes

A VE SS achieving only 220rwkw from an exhaust and tune?

Even when the motors are new and tight they pull a minimum of 270rwkw.

I’d be asking for my money back quick smart, it sounds like a bad tune and I’d be taking it to a real tuner in case it drops its guts everywhere.

270 RW-KW (at the back wheels!) for a Commondoor SS ?

Might I enlighten you that even the current SS 6.0L is OEM (Flywheel) rated @ 260 KW for the Auto and 270 Kw for the Manual - and ON 98 octane.

[Falcman0o7]

Originally Posted by commonrails

Everyone know's that it's 220kW without a chev badge and 250-270kW with a chev badge.

If he has 4 chev badges no one will even be eclipsed by the shadow of his VE Superdoor...

[buggo]

That a 317 Clubby would smash a 315GS because it says it has 2 extra kilowatts. Doesn't even get that ones NA and ones SC, nup - more peak power equals quicker no ifs no buts. An XR6t has no chance...

Same goes with the 340 Clubby and GT, even R spec

[jaydee]

This is going to end in disaster...

[Chopped]

Sounds like you all have bogan mates.

[chookaradley]

Sounds like a typical commodore driver to me...

[STINKY NINJA]

I have an old pair of explorer socks with holes in them that make more than 220rwkw...

[STINKY NINJA]

And boy are they fasttttttt!
I bet theyd beat your mates car easy....

[lucas2]

Could just be the dyno, what was the stock figure? They usually pull 200-220 stock and 250+ after a tune w/exhaust.

[MITCHAY]

My mate had an exhaust, tune and OTR for his VE SS Redline and pulled 258rwkw supposedly.

I don't know if that is enough to run 12s but considering they make 270fwkw stock I'd imagine it would go pretty hard. I liked it even when it was stock, I wouldn't bother to do too many mods.

[xisled]

Find someone with a fpv and run him down the quarter. I think you might be surprised with the outcome.

This is a easy way tho see who has the quickest car.

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by fgpsi

I have a mate that has a VE SS with a tune and exhaust. Only made 220 rwkws on the dyno, this guy thinks his SS is the ducks guts (thinks it'll do low 12s) and thinks it will beat any Ford/FPV without any issues.

Numerous times I've told him that a stock F6 or even FG XR6T would eat him for brekky but he just won't listen. Drives it like a flog too, always flat stick.

Thought it would be a good opportunity for you guys to share your stories about that delusional mate you might have who does the same thing..

If you really want him to believe that stock a stock fg xr6t is faster than his car why not line it up with your xr6t and do a few runs?

[chookaradley]

Is the VE Commodore the most overrated car in Australian motoring history?.. Serious question

[KW XRT]

Originally Posted by chookaradley

Is the VE Commodore the most overrated car in Australian motoring history?.. Serious question

Considering there a crate motor for sure.I mean you have to worry when a recall comes out to do with a high pressure fuel hose.That's pretty basic stuff.

[LoudPipes]

Originally Posted by KW XRT

Considering there a crate motor for sure.I mean you have to worry when a recall comes out to do with a high pressure fuel hose.That's pretty basic stuff.

That recall was for 2 months of manufacture in July to August 2006 with no hazard to the vehicle occupants.

It could be easily offset by the 2013 Ford FG/FG Mk II Falcon XT EcoLPi Sedan incorrect tyre recall with a hazard that may adversely affect handling of the vehicle and may increase the risk of an accident.
Until the product safety recall is complete, owners are advised that the Dynamic Stability Control feature should remain on at all times.
Tyres, they’ve been around for years, you’d think Ford would be able to get it right by now.

Every manufacturer has recalls so it’s useless for the pot to call the kettle black.

Just to put some fairness back after an alarmist post, here are the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission’s Product Safety Recalls Lists for Ford and Holden starting from 1986 to 2014.

Ford

https://www.recalls.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/952864

Holden

https://www.recalls.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/952863


And these lists don’t include all the suspected faults that the manufacturers won’t issue recalls for.
Happy reading.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by fgpsi

Numerous times I've told him that a stock F6 or even FG XR6T would eat him for brekky but he just won't listen.

Standard F6 yes, standard XR6T no. A 6.0 with a full exhaust/decent tune, an auto behind it and capable rubber will be in the 12s. If he's running Nankangs on the rear like every other bogan, forget it. Also ignore dyno numbers, they're all different, take it to the track and tell us the MPH.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Standard F6 yes, standard XR6T no. A 6.0 with a full exhaust/decent tune, an auto behind it and capable rubber will be in the 12s. If he's running Nankangs on the rear like every other bogan, forget it. Also ignore dyno numbers, they're all different, take it to the track and tell us the MPH.

Hi Adrenaline, I can agree with you about the possibility of 12's (high) for a 6.0 with a very good exhaust and tune, but I feel sure that you're still underrating XR6T's.
Do you remember your post in the "Confusion over VF SS 0-100 times" thread where you wrote. "A standard XR6T getting to 100 in mid-4 seconds is completely unbelievable" (your post 186 of 27/4/14).
Shortly after I replied to what you wrote (post 218 of of 2/5/14) I ran my untuned XR6T at WSID.
Surely that's the very best way to reply I'd say.

What did I get?

Run 1. Car launched in second gear and a 12.731 quarter mile timeslip after a 2250 rpm stall up.

Run 2. Car launched in 1st gear (normal Drive) and a 12.509 second quarter mile dragstrip timeslip. The stall up was 300 rpm lower, I doubt that there was enough grip on the night for the higher stall up in first gear to work.
On both occasions the car was shallow staged.
I also measured the runs with my GPS based Performance box and I recall that you had doubted it's accuracy.

So was it accurate?

Definitely. It's time from 60 feet to the end of the quarter was within 1 hundredth of a second of the Dragstrip time on the first run. With run 2 it recorded a very fractionally slower time (only 2-3 hundredths out and on the pessimistic side).
Below is it's printout.
Conditions on the night (of 21/5/14). 92 kg driver. 18-19 degrees. 70% plus humidity. Full sized spare and jack in boot. 15-20 litres of fuel in tank plus tools etc in boot. The equivalent of just over half a tank fuel load. New Goodyear Eagle F1 Directional standard size 18 inch tyres (approx $270. each).
Run 1 (2nd gear launch)..................................Run 2 ( launch in Drive).
0-20..........0.85 sec....2.40 metres......................0-20..............0.84......2.25 m
0-40..........1.64..........9.01.................... ...........0-40..............1.61......8.65
0-60..........2.61..........22.54................... ...........0-60..............2.37.....19.37

0-80..........3.70..........43.78................... ...........0-80..............3.43.....40.07
0-100kmh...4.85sec......72.51....................... ......0-100.............4.62.....69.68

0-120.........6.40..........120.46.................. .........0-120.............6.19......117.92
0-140.........8.19..........184.87.................. .........0-140.............8.07......185.94
0-160........10.24..........270.74.................. .........0-160............10.13.....272.14
0-180.04k...12.97.......At 400 metres...................0-179.39........12.84..At 400 Metres

The question is how fast might the car have been if there had been enough grip for the 2250 rpm stall up in 1st gear?

Well, on a previous high altitude launch (concrete surface) that technique got me a 2 tenth faster 0-20 time (0.64 sec).
Using that time and the Racelogic software to accurately calculate the potential 400 metre time (grip permitting), I get the result shown below. I've applied it to the second run which had slower rolling acceleration (I think the cars engine and transmission temperatures may have cooled a bit too much by run 2).

0-20..................0.64....1.97 metres (taken from earlier high altitude 0-100 kmh run)
0-100................4.42 sec

0-179.44 k.........12.65 seconds at 400 metres.

Sure it didn't do that time but it shows the potential (grip permitting) and with the car shallow staged that points to the possibility of a 12.3 second Dragstrip timeslip.
Whatever the case though, I think it's already achieved enough to clearly be capable of beating fgpsi's mates Commodore.
With the overboost operating (on 10.5 pounds boost with about 5% wheelslip) it got 262 RWKW on a Dyno Dynamics machine and although a 6.0 Commodore with exhaust and tune may match that, I can't see it's average power across the rev range being as high. The Dyno sheets very conservative Flywheel power calculation points to a max torque figure of around 670 Nm.

Happy Dyno?
I hardly think so considering the cars 0-60 and 0-100 times on the first run when it was in a second gear that is high enough to run beyond 110 kmh.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by 2242100

Hi Adrenaline, I can agree with you about the possibility of 12's (high) for a 6.0 with a very good exhaust and tune, but I feel sure that you're still underrating XR6T's.
Do you remember your post in the "Confusion over VF SS 0-100 times" thread where you wrote. "A standard XR6T getting to 100 in mid-4 seconds is completely unbelievable" (your post 186 of 27/4/14).
Shortly after I replied to what you wrote (post 218 of of 2/5/14) I ran my untuned XR6T at WSID.
Surely that's the very best way to reply I'd say.

What did I get?

Run 1. Car launched in second gear and a 12.731 quarter mile timeslip after a 2250 rpm stall up.

Run 2. Car launched in 1st gear (normal Drive) and a 12.509 second quarter mile dragstrip timeslip. The stall up was 300 rpm lower, I doubt that there was enough grip on the night for the higher stall up in first gear to work.
On both occasions the car was shallow staged.
I also measured the runs with my GPS based Performance box and I recall that you had doubted it's accuracy.

So was it accurate?

Definitely. It's time from 60 feet to the end of the quarter was within 1 hundredth of a second of the Dragstrip time on the first run. With run 2 it recorded a very fractionally slower time (only 2-3 hundredths out and on the pessimistic side).
Below is it's printout.
Conditions on the night (of 21/5/14). 92 kg driver. 18-19 degrees. 70% plus humidity. Full sized spare and jack in boot. 15-20 litres of fuel in tank plus tools etc in boot. The equivalent of just over half a tank fuel load. New Goodyear Eagle F1 Directional standard size 18 inch tyres (approx $270. each).
Run 1 (2nd gear launch)..................................Run 2 ( launch in Drive).
0-20..........0.85 sec....2.40 metres......................0-20..............0.84......2.25 m
0-40..........1.64..........9.01.................... ...........0-40..............1.61......8.65
0-60..........2.61..........22.54................... ...........0-60..............2.37.....19.37

0-80..........3.70..........43.78................... ...........0-80..............3.43.....40.07
0-100kmh...4.85sec......72.51....................... ......0-100.............4.62.....69.68

0-120.........6.40..........120.46.................. .........0-120.............6.19......117.92
0-140.........8.19..........184.87.................. .........0-140.............8.07......185.94
0-160........10.24..........270.74.................. .........0-160............10.13.....272.14
0-180.04k...12.97.......At 400 metres...................0-179.39........12.84..At 400 Metres

The question is how fast might the car have been if there had been enough grip for the 2250 rpm stall up in 1st gear?

Well, on a previous high altitude launch (concrete surface) that technique got me a 2 tenth faster 0-20 time (0.64 sec).
Using that time and the Racelogic software to accurately calculate the potential 400 metre time (grip permitting), I get the result shown below. I've applied it to the second run which had slower rolling acceleration (I think the cars engine and transmission temperatures may have cooled a bit too much by run 2).

0-20..................0.64....1.97 metres (taken from earlier high altitude 0-100 kmh run)
0-100................4.42 sec

0-179.44 k.........12.65 seconds at 400 metres.

Sure it didn't do that time but it shows the potential (grip permitting) and with the car shallow staged that points to the possibility of a 12.3 second Dragstrip timeslip.
Whatever the case though, I think it's already achieved enough to clearly be capable of beating fgpsi's mates Commodore.
With the overboost operating (on 10.5 pounds boost with about 5% wheelslip) it got 262 RWKW on a Dyno Dynamics machine and although a 6.0 Commodore with exhaust and tune may match that, I can't see it's average power across the rev range being as high. The Dyno sheets very conservative Flywheel power calculation points to a max torque figure of around 670 Nm.

Happy Dyno?
I hardly think so considering the cars 0-60 and 0-100 times on the first run when it was in a second gear that is high enough to run beyond 110 kmh.

I owned an FG XR6 Turbo for 4 years and have raced at WSID in a number of FG Turbos in various states of modification, I know exactly how fast they are. If your numbers are correct, then you have the fastest stock FG XR6 Turbo in history over 400m, the fastest from 0-100 and the most powerful on a dyno- congratulations, put a feather in your cap. Whether I believe you or not is irrelevant- as those numbers are certainly not what an average FG turbo will achieve so I don't think they're appropriate for this discussion, particularly seeing that fgpsi's car is manual.

And regarding the other thread you mention, appreciate that you had only been a forum member for a few months and were making by far the most impressive claims for a standard XR6 Turbo in history (like the 4.4 second 0-100 run you described). You were always going to be questioned and for what it's worth, I'm still not a believer- so don't waste your time picking a fight with me. I've been on the forums for too long and have seen far too many impressive claims for cars that turned out to be tuned or unicorns. So don't take it personally, maybe I'll see you at WSID one of these days

[malazn mafia]

Originally Posted by 2242100

The question is how fast might the car have been if there had been enough grip for the 2250 rpm stall up in 1st gear?

Would love to know. Is wider rear tyres the answer or AWD conversion the only way to find out?

[HULK_I6T]

Originally Posted by 2242100

Hi Adrenaline, I can agree with you about the possibility of 12's (high) for a 6.0 with a very good exhaust and tune, but I feel sure that you're still underrating XR6T's.
Do you remember your post in the "Confusion over VF SS 0-100 times" thread where you wrote. "A standard XR6T getting to 100 in mid-4 seconds is completely unbelievable" (your post 186 of 27/4/14).
Shortly after I replied to what you wrote (post 218 of of 2/5/14) I ran my untuned XR6T at WSID.
Surely that's the very best way to reply I'd say.

What did I get?

Run 1. Car launched in second gear and a 12.731 quarter mile timeslip after a 2250 rpm stall up.

Run 2. Car launched in 1st gear (normal Drive) and a 12.509 second quarter mile dragstrip timeslip. The stall up was 300 rpm lower, I doubt that there was enough grip on the night for the higher stall up in first gear to work.
On both occasions the car was shallow staged.
I also measured the runs with my GPS based Performance box and I recall that you had doubted it's accuracy.

So was it accurate?

Definitely. It's time from 60 feet to the end of the quarter was within 1 hundredth of a second of the Dragstrip time on the first run. With run 2 it recorded a very fractionally slower time (only 2-3 hundredths out and on the pessimistic side).
Below is it's printout.
Conditions on the night (of 21/5/14). 92 kg driver. 18-19 degrees. 70% plus humidity. Full sized spare and jack in boot. 15-20 litres of fuel in tank plus tools etc in boot. The equivalent of just over half a tank fuel load. New Goodyear Eagle F1 Directional standard size 18 inch tyres (approx $270. each).
Run 1 (2nd gear launch)..................................Run 2 ( launch in Drive).
0-20..........0.85 sec....2.40 metres......................0-20..............0.84......2.25 m
0-40..........1.64..........9.01.................... ...........0-40..............1.61......8.65
0-60..........2.61..........22.54................... ...........0-60..............2.37.....19.37

0-80..........3.70..........43.78................... ...........0-80..............3.43.....40.07
0-100kmh...4.85sec......72.51....................... ......0-100.............4.62.....69.68

0-120.........6.40..........120.46.................. .........0-120.............6.19......117.92
0-140.........8.19..........184.87.................. .........0-140.............8.07......185.94
0-160........10.24..........270.74.................. .........0-160............10.13.....272.14
0-180.04k...12.97.......At 400 metres...................0-179.39........12.84..At 400 Metres

The question is how fast might the car have been if there had been enough grip for the 2250 rpm stall up in 1st gear?

Well, on a previous high altitude launch (concrete surface) that technique got me a 2 tenth faster 0-20 time (0.64 sec).
Using that time and the Racelogic software to accurately calculate the potential 400 metre time (grip permitting), I get the result shown below. I've applied it to the second run which had slower rolling acceleration (I think the cars engine and transmission temperatures may have cooled a bit too much by run 2).

0-20..................0.64....1.97 metres (taken from earlier high altitude 0-100 kmh run)
0-100................4.42 sec

0-179.44 k.........12.65 seconds at 400 metres.

Sure it didn't do that time but it shows the potential (grip permitting) and with the car shallow staged that points to the possibility of a 12.3 second Dragstrip timeslip.
Whatever the case though, I think it's already achieved enough to clearly be capable of beating fgpsi's mates Commodore.
With the overboost operating (on 10.5 pounds boost with about 5% wheelslip) it got 262 RWKW on a Dyno Dynamics machine and although a 6.0 Commodore with exhaust and tune may match that, I can't see it's average power across the rev range being as high. The Dyno sheets very conservative Flywheel power calculation points to a max torque figure of around 670 Nm.

Happy Dyno?
I hardly think so considering the cars 0-60 and 0-100 times on the first run when it was in a second gear that is high enough to run beyond 110 kmh.

there was a test done which ran the Fg XR6T against the VF SS (same motor as the VE).... they were side by sideat the finish, both went 13.1....

same day, same track, same conditions, maybe the XR6T has more in it but then you would assume so has the SS..

[zilo]

Originally Posted by HULK_I6T

there was a test done which ran the Fg XR6T against the VF SS (same motor as the VE).... they were side by sideat the finish, both went 13.1....

same day, same track, same conditions, maybe the XR6T has more in it but then you would assume so has the SS..

were both cars completely stock?
what boost level on the XR6T, factory stock or ECU tweaked?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by zilo

were both cars completely stock?
what boost level on the XR6T, factory stock or ECU tweaked?

Both cars standard.

http://media.drive.com.au/cars/car-n...o-4528871.html

[2242100]

Originally Posted by HULK_I6T

there was a test done which ran the Fg XR6T against the VF SS (same motor as the VE).... they were side by sideat the finish, both went 13.1....

same day, same track, same conditions, maybe the XR6T has more in it but then you would assume so has the SS..

Here's the point that's being missed and I would have missed it too if I didn't have the Racelogic test gear that gives accurate and detailed data.
The overboost is normally always available in every day real world driving conditions, however if you do one run after without a cooldown run, you will lose the overboost pretty quickly.
I can't say how Drive tested these cars, but I'd be surprised if they wouldn't have done a number of runs trying different launch and driving techniques and by the time that they had sorted that out, I think the overboost feature likely wouldn't have been working or at least not working fully.
Also as I've found, if a high stall up is attempted and the brakes don't hold then there is an immediate loss of at least 10% pace. I suspect that's because the overboost isn't working but whatever the case, the performance returns after a few k's of gentle driving.

The performance from the Drive test Falcon was a bit faster than the Commodore and was about what I would expect from my car without the overboost feature working.

Also another point to note is that there is up to nearly 1/2 a second to be gained or lost (on a high grip surface) depending on the amount of stall up revs used.

The rolling acceleration of another 2009 FG Turbo has been tested with my Performance Box and it was certainly as fast as mine.

As well on the "XR6 Turbo.com" website there are a few good times from untuned standard Turbo's.
EG a 12.6, a 12.5 and a couple of 12.3's out of a car that just had a K&N filter and an XR 8 snorkel fitted.
I know from my own testing that my car goes no faster without any filter in the airbox and the inside diameter of the pipe out of the airbox looks too small to me for the larger snorkel to work. So I think that car was effectively standard.

Seems to me that the real pace of the standard Turbo's has largely passed under the radar.