I have a mate...

[Nova 8]

Originally Posted by JC

At least your mates think their 8s are quick. My brother in law has a VZ SV6 and tells my kids that it is as fast as our GTE (they know it's not). He then tells them that mine is only like that because I supercharged it...to which they reply the supercharger is standard. Then he says if he supercharged his V6 it would stay up with the GTE. He is such a flog and it really sh!ts me - I mean I have to tell my kids not to listen to him because he's so full of it, but at the same time I tell them to respect their elders (except him).

I don't know what can I do - I tell him he's full of crap, and he just says "Oh, I don't know...I reckon it would keep up with it"...but won't even do a traffic light derby at the speed limit. My boys at 9 and 11 have already been exposed to the commondore mind set - in a way this is good, because they will never buy one!

I'm currently driving a VF SV6 while my car gets repaired (kangaroo..) and it could easily take ANY Ford...... If the Ford were doing 50 and I were doing 60.

My old VE SV6 would pretty much level peg with the FG XR6 my mother had, how anyone would expect a SV6 to keep up with a 6t or 8 is beyound me.

[PHawk]

Originally Posted by HULK_I6T

Sorry im late.. how did miss this thread?

give the commodore guys a bit of slack..

their comments are probably relating to the 5.4 cars of the b series and fg.. its a fact that mod for mod the ls1 and the 6.0 ls cars easily picked apart the 5.4 cars..(and all the windsor v8s)

but to say it in the company of an i6t or miami v8 shows his information is out of date.

I wouldnt swap my i6t for a ls holden/hsv but in return if I owned a ls holden/hsv (I do actually) I also wouldnt swap it for a ford/fpv.

Fords/fpv are different not necessarily better.

I've had both Boss 315 and LS3, My 315 Auto will easily hold it's own against my Manual Maloo.

[damo6]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

The L76 has had AFM capability since they used it originally in the Commodore (VZ?) but they never used it up until they introduced AFM in the VEs. I think the difference between the AFM engine and the normal 6L SS engine is that the AFM variant is the L76 and the regular version is the L98, different valve train.

If you want to change the cam I'm pretty sure you have to disable the AFM by changing lifters etc.

Yes that's correct Damo, my last 6L. was afm, they are notoriously unreliable with any decent cam because of the design of them,tension load spring on one end with a locking pin type set up- very ugly to look at indeed. having them sitting in plastic lifter buckets (location inserts) doesn't help either,the norm is to turf the lot and replace which in my case were morel tie bars. rods and comp cams springs

[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?

[Franco Cozzo]

.

Meant for PM lol

[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

[Alan D Segal]

Originally Posted by HULK_I6T

Sorry im late.. how did miss this thread?

give the commodore guys a bit of slack..

I think it is safe to say that every 'I have a mate' story is about Hulk. It is just an example of how it is a small world and we all actually know Hulk through friends or friends of friends - six degrees of Hulk I call it.

So every time someone tells a story about 'a mate', you know it isn't a proliferation of of people like that out there, it is the same guy and he frequents this forum

[commonrails]

Originally Posted by Alan D Segal

I think it is safe to say that every 'I have a mate' story is about Hulk. It is just an example of how it is a small world and we all actually know Hulk through friends or friends of friends - six degrees of Hulk I call it.

God save us...

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Both cars standard.

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

thanks for that.....just one more psi of boost and the Ford is a 12 sec car.

but the commodore...well...not so easy....eh?

[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.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by zilo

thanks for that.....just one more psi of boost and the Ford is a 12 sec car.

but the commodore...well...not so easy....eh?

And that's why the SS vs XR6T thing is mostly a waste of time arguing about- these cars don't stay standard for long in the hands of enthusiasts and once tickled, the turbo Fords are practically unbeatable. You'd be spending big money on a cam or supercharger to keep the V8 in the race.

[HULK_I6T]

Originally Posted by Alan D Segal

I think it is safe to say that every 'I have a mate' story is about Hulk. It is just an example of how it is a small world and we all actually know Hulk through friends or friends of friends - six degrees of Hulk I call it.

So every time someone tells a story about 'a mate', you know it isn't a proliferation of of people like that out there, it is the same guy and he frequents this forum

But I didnt start this thread??

[Alan D Segal]

Originally Posted by HULK_I6T

But I didnt start this thread??

You didn't need to. It could still be about you and not by you. And you're here posting in it - coincidence?

[lucas2]

The numbers in that test don't quite add up for me.
6T: 0-60 = 2.4, 0-100 = 4.9, 400m = 13.1@175kmh
SS: 0-60 = 2.4, 0-100 = 5.0, 400m = 13.1@174kmh

Where does the SS gain the 0.1 sec back, given that it traps lower (albeit 1kmh is negligible). Is it a case of the 6T doing a 13.100 and the SS doing a 13.199?

The difference is negligible, and I'm not hating on either car, just curious as to where the difference is.

[xr6tjet]

Seriously why would you even bother believing that. Ford owners stay calm and content and don't have such a big head and just silently ruin commodores lol. Its been like that for years especially with XR6 turbos need I say more?

[Alan D Segal]

Originally Posted by xr6tjet

Its been like that for years especially with XR6 turbos need I say more?

Please tell me more about how fast these xr6 turbos are

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by lucas2

The numbers in that test don't quite add up for me.
6T: 0-60 = 2.4, 0-100 = 4.9, 400m = 13.1@175kmh
SS: 0-60 = 2.4, 0-100 = 5.0, 400m = 13.1@174kmh

Where does the SS gain the 0.1 sec back, given that it traps lower (albeit 1kmh is negligible). Is it a case of the 6T doing a 13.100 and the SS doing a 13.199?

The difference is negligible, and I'm not hating on either car, just curious as to where the difference is.

I'd say because being 0.1 second quicker to 100km/h does not mean it will be 0.1 second quicker over 400m, they're not necessarily related like that. The SS likely had a better 60'. 13.1 is a good time for an SS, but an XR6T should be able to do better. For what it's worth, I've raced a VF SS with an FG1 XR6T (numerous times, friend's car) and both being stock there's nothing in it, which initially came as a surprise to me, I half expected the SS to get munched. VFs are a bit different to the VEs that we're used to though- lighter, better aero, less power being sapped by a hydraulic power steering pump, so that probably contributes.

[lucas2]

I get that the VF is probably quicker than the VE for the reasons you outlined. The SS may have had a quicker 60', but is slower anyway to 100kmh. Then it traps slower, but still has the same ET. There must be something between the 100-175kmh where the SS picks up again, despite the 6T having more torque and power.

I agree though, there doesn't seem to be much in it between them anymore.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by lucas2

The numbers in that test don't quite add up for me.
6T: 0-60 = 2.4, 0-100 = 4.9, 400m = 13.1@175kmh
SS: 0-60 = 2.4, 0-100 = 5.0, 400m = 13.1@174kmh

Where does the SS gain the 0.1 sec back, given that it traps lower (albeit 1kmh is negligible). Is it a case of the 6T doing a 13.100 and the SS doing a 13.199?

The difference is negligible, and I'm not hating on either car, just curious as to where the difference is.

What sec times for the 1000m that's more to the point of I what to know.

[LyleXR8]

Originally Posted by castellan

Rubbish !
How can a car that is rated by Holden with 260 270 ECE KW make that at the rear wheels.
The ECE figures do not lie.
Dyno figures can lie.

the same way a car rated by ford as having 315 or 335 kw at the engine slams it down to the wheels on many a dyno

[LyleXR8]

Im a Ford at heart guy but im a fence sitter, love both brands and currently have one of each, 270 rwkw from a 6litre is the average, my LS1 is at 251 rwkw, my brothers LS3 clubby is 308rwkw, all full exhaust, OTR intake and dyno tuned,

[sleek7]

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.

My BF turbo made 219kW at the rears 100% stock...All I can say is lol.

[Alan D Segal]

Originally Posted by sleek7

My BF turbo made 219kW at the rears 100% stock...All I can say is lol.

Wow. It'd be good for about a 14 flat at 102mph then?

[castellan]

Originally Posted by LyleXR8

the same way a car rated by ford as having 315 or 335 kw at the engine slams it down to the wheels on many a dyno

On many a Dyno.
Crappy Dyno results do not cut it bro and that's the point I have made and the fact is ECE is the true power that no one can dispute at all. end of story !

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by sleek7

My BF turbo made 219kW at the rears 100% stock...All I can say is lol.

You need to understand that you cannot compare dyno numbers between different dynos on different days in different conditions with different operators/strapping techniques etc. For example, there was a dyno day in Sydney not long ago where they measured the peak power of an FGII XR6T and VEII SS (both highway patrol cars). From memory, the XR6T made ~200rwkw and the SS ~180rwkw. Using the same logic that you just demonstrated, perhaps you'd say that your standard BF is more powerful than the latest FGII. Now of course it isn't- it simply demonstrates why dynos are a useless comparison tool. And we haven't even considered torque or what the curve looks like. Whenever I read a signature and they quote their dyno number right down to the half kilowatt, I chuckle. A drag strip will tell you how powerful your car is, the dyno is for tuning.

[LyleXR8]

Originally Posted by castellan

On many a Dyno.
Crappy Dyno results do not cut it bro and that's the point I have made and the fact is ECE is the true power that no one can dispute at all. end of story !

I will just name 2. CHE in Sydney that have built 10 second GTs. The other XFT in Perth that is most probably the best in the business

[kaniSS]

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.

Lol Nankangs..

[Trump]

HOW DID I MISS THIS THREAD???

This needs to be here:

[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.