Do you think a VR would smoke me?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by SSBUB

heres one:
VX SS edited, auto, measly 194 rwkw (ala me ) vs BA xr8 stock over 1/4 mile ?

how about supercharged Minginator v's... well, jsut about anything from Holden really :thebirds:

[Sprint_ED]

Originally Posted by SSBUB

heres one:
VX SS edited, auto, measly 194 rwkw (ala me ) vs BA xr8 stock over 1/4 mile ?

Edited!!!!! and in stock form

[SSBUB]

Originally Posted by Sprint_ED

Edited!!!!! and in stock form

your more confident than i am :

[Laminge]

Originally Posted by Casper

how about supercharged Minginator v's... well, jsut about anything from Holden really :thebirds:

I have to work out how to turn square wheels back into round ones, and pay for the permanant parking space at herrods 1st!.

[Sprint_ED]

i think ur missing my point

VLT 1300 kg ( round abouts) 150kw
EA 1550gk 147kw

and EA Wins

VX SS bout what bout 1600 245kw
BA XR8 1700kg 260 kw

in ur case u got less power and less weight, ok u get in front

in VLT case more power and a turbo ALOT less weight and it looses

[SSBUB]

VX was 225 stock
194rwkw is 275 fwkw
boss 290 would have me though i think

[Sprint_ED]

ryan ryan rayan when well u learn

on 99.9999% of threads when ppl compare eseries, or xr6 turbos or other cars, sum holden guys comes on and always has 2 compare it 2 a vl tubo, thats y were sick of it, ud have sum sense were in a FORD FORUM, and frankly ok here and there hearing about a VLT ok, but constantly hearing about em will give us the ИИИИs were in a ford forum so if u had any sense ud think that were not fond of em, so go to www.vlturbo.com and rave on about it to ur hearts content

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Sprint_ED

i think ur missing my point

VLT 1300 kg ( round abouts) 150kw
EA 1550gk 147kw

and EA Wins

VX SS bout what bout 1600 245kw
BA XR8 1700kg 260 kw

in ur case u got less power and less weight, ok u get in front

in VLT case more power and a turbo ALOT less weight and it looses

EA was 139kW with 3.9 MPFI. The EB/ED 4.0 had 148kW.

[Sprint_ED]

um my uncels series 2 monaro STOCK made 199rkw with no air filter so i think ur might be a bit out stock xr6 turbos made 190rwkw and there 240

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Sprint_ED

ryan ryan rayan when well u learn

on 99.9999% of threads when ppl compare eseries, or xr6 turbos or other cars, sum holden guys comes on and always has 2 compare it 2 a vl tubo, thats y were sick of it, ud have sum sense were in a FORD FORUM, and frankly ok here and there hearing about a VLT ok, but constantly hearing about em will give us the ИИИИs were in a ford forum so if u had any sense ud think that were not fond of em, so go to www.vlturbo.com and rave on about it to ur hearts content

Well I apologise.

The sole reason I asked is because they are so close in comparison and thought it would be interesting to ask because I didnt know the answer.

I could've asked the question involving a N/A VL 5 Speed but I knew that wasnt as good of a match so now I admit I f****d up and I wont mention a VL Turbo again.

[BA_Turbs]

I can't be bothered reading the whole thread, so I've just read your initial couple of posts.

I think the old 3.8 clunker in the Commodore is great at giving the idea that it is going fast. If you boot it, it makes a vast amount of noise, it moans, groans and carries on; whether it actually goes anywhere or not is another matter. I know little of the mechanics of the two vehicles but the Commodre would feel like it had a lower diff and a shorter first gear (from my experience), which is generally why Commodores have always felt faster, while actually going slower. Its also why when you get beyond legal speeds they go like a lump of ****, the motor is gutless.

Ultimately, matched against and equivlent model Falcon, it would be very close or a loss to the Commodore. Goitn against a car five years older, even if a manual, I think the Holden just might have the wood over the Ford.

[gmhdriver]

Originally Posted by Steffo

The VR on the other hand, is lucky to pull a 16.5 in manual form

You've got to be kidding right? VR autos have consistantly done better times than that and I have a comparo where even a "heavy" VT2 V6 auto has recorded a 16.0. A properly driven VR manual will be in the high 15's easily.

It seems that most of you are judging the VR's performance by nothing but 'on paper' theories, If you have actually driven or been in one you would realise they are quite quick for what they are.

On the other hand, the EA's performance figures may seem quick, but of all the EA's I have driven and been in (various multipoints and manuals) honestly none of them felt like they would pull the skin off a custard pudding.
From my personal accounts, I have seen VR/VS's consistantly beat more powerful EF/EL's by 1-2 carlengths, so I don't think an EA would be any quicker.

The best thing to do is actually run the two cars (on a racetrack of course) and let the results speak for themselves. My money's on the VR.

[gmhdriver]

Oh, and before you start flaming me, I honestly don't give a flying ИИИИ which car is quicker. I'll believe what I think is right and you can believe whatever you want to believe. Lets just leave it at that.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by gmhdriver

Oh, and before you start flaming me, I honestly don't give a flying ИИИИ which car is quicker. I'll believe what I think is right and you can believe whatever you want to believe. Lets just leave it at that.

I said the EA but I can honestly say ive never driven either of them so I dont really know.

[UNR8D]

hmm difficult one really, money would be on the EA only because of the MPFI and manual combo, if you said auto vs auto id give it to the VR.

im yet to see a stock VR get into the 15's.... EVER

either way ИИИИИ it love the look on the face of a V8 owner when my I6 smokes them now ;)

[Sprint_ED]

the advantage of the commo is the short first gear and diff ratio. on my 5.0 in first gear a vn will stay with me once second is in they dissapear, same story here in a traffic light grand prox the vs will get the jump, but down a quater, i dont think so and up high, ive driven vr's and i feel like that will be the last thing i do before im burried 8 foot under

[gmhdriver]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

im yet to see a stock VR get into the 15's.... EVER

I've never seen a magazine test done with a V6 manual, only autos, and from personal experience the manual feels significantly quicker than the auto, so I wouldn't be surprised if a manual recorded 15.8 - 15.9.

[gmhdriver]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

either way ИИИИИ it love the look on the face of a V8 owner when my I6 smokes them now ;)

That's nothing to crow about really when you take into account all the mods you've got!! Run a V8 with the same mods and then see if you can smoke them.

[SSBUB]

Originally Posted by Sprint_ED

um my uncels series 2 monaro STOCK made 199rkw with no air filter so i think ur might be a bit out stock xr6 turbos made 190rwkw and there 240

monaro's come with higher kw to begin with - sounds like your uncle got a good one too.
You have to realize mine is auto which lowers any peak kw figure straight away more than a manual. I dont know about xr6t's, i think they have more down low than my old girl. My edit is not a custom edit either, its just a mailbag tune and it pulled 194 rwkw on the Ford dyno day. Not a bad figure for what it has done to it - it was the quitest car there coz it only has a stock vy ss exhaust. If i wanted to go to town on it i could get 230 rwkw by changing a few things, but i dont have the $$ no desire to get high hp when it wont see the track.

[Sprint_ED]

ok well as an indication to you (not trying 2 give u ИИИИ)

my uncles is the 245 one auto
and another eg, T3 ts50 199rkwk 250kw,

unfortunatley u cant get a true figure of fwkw from rwkw but its usually 30% more on RWKW

boss GT's are usually round 220 rkwk and there 290, i think ud be about 245-250 fw