Boosted Falcon

XR6 Hulk wrote:Hi,

I am a ford man. But I have owned Holdens and Fords...

Im tired that on Ford Forums, all people say is how good the I6 is and that the Holden V6 is crap. On Holden Forums all they say is how coarse the I6 is and how the V6 will flog it. People are eye eyed all over the place..

smokin ef wrote:Id say overall quicker than Ford EB-EL 4.0's


i laugh in your face at this comment lol.. iv raced my mate with a 5 sp vr ( i have a 5sp ef), never i repeat NEVER has he bet me... we both have minor mods, mine being a k&n filter, exhust, 3.45 diff gears and thats about it... hes got a cam, ss induction intake, full exhust, 3.45 diff and a few other goodies.. but still every time i beat him by atleast a carlength over 3/400 meters.. oh and my cars don 150,XXXkms were his has done 167,xxx.. but i doubt that will make much of a differance.

XRated wrote:Jared I know what you're saying about the love-hate thing! But what is this 12-second Buick business (crap?) you speak of? I'm assuming you're referring to the factory supercharged V6... If so, I thought those were pathetic (mid-high 15s stock) and the smaller pulley kits available get next to sweet **** all in terms of performance??

PS: You're a tosser

EBOOST wrote:yeah in auto they are poo off the line.
and oneredED i have a mate that has spent a fair amount of money on his vt supercharged and only netted a 13.7 @ 98mph with a 1.6 60'.
he has pulley kit ,injectors, tune, 3inch exhaust, extractors, methanol injection and a few other things. its quick as off the line but then its not that flash.
cheers josh.

Without itemising the every conceivable component and modification, here are the major ones of interest:

Measured Dyno Power Output: 330rwhp (250rwkw)

Best ¼ Mile: 11.48sec @ 117mph

* FIT Air-to-Air Intercooler
* 20psi Boost Pulley
* Standard L67 Short Motor
* Specification Camshaft
* Porting and Polishing Heads
* Standard Injectors
* 2 x Bosch Motorsport Fuel Pumps
* LSD Diff with 3.9 Ratio
* Fully Rebuilt Auto Transmission
* Hi-Stall

Car Type: 1989 VN Commodore

XR6 Hulk wrote:Hi,

I am a ford man. But I have owned Holdens and Fords...

Im tired that on Ford Forums, all people say is how good the I6 is and that the Holden V6 is crap. On Holden Forums all they say is how coarse the I6 is and how the V6 will flog it. People are eye eyed all over the place..

Im a fair man.. These are my conclusions (Both Auto)

Holden VN-VS V6, jack the rabbit take offs. Generally lighter cars and quicker off the line and therefore in a straight line than the ford flat to the floor. Holdens have traditionally been shorter geared to get out of the blocks quicker. But catch one of these at the bottom of a hill in the wrong gear and its just pathetic, no torque. Also after about 120km/h they just die in the ass even flat out. Great on fuel economy but put 5 people in the car and you would think the car is tied to a tree, it just doesnt move with some weight in it. When they are on song they are pretty quick, Id say overall quicker than Ford EB-EL 4.0's

FORD EB-EL, 4.0 massive torque, almost V8 like. Heaps better cruiser, but the gears are ridiculously long. Dont feel as quick as the Holdens flat out acceleration and have always been more thirsty. These are far stronger motors for towing. They keep pulling when the holden V6 gives up the ghost (after 120km/h). They are also far more responsive to mods.

why is it that Holden have traditionally gone for the jack the rabbit take offs, short gearing but no top end and ford have the moderate take off, long gears but nice big punch in the top end?

What are your comments on the charateristics of these type of motors?

Aaron_EF8 wrote:The blown V6's are a bit of a wolf in sheeps clothing, plus the blower whine sounds fkn awesome. But I am curious, how do you fit an air-air cooler to a roots blown V6?

XR6 Hulk wrote:

Commando wrote:The jack the rabbit take offs assist the jink in the Holden driver's step.

Hahaha, you remember that thread... who ever wrote that knows what they are talking about..

I think it depends upon what we drivers prefer (in autos) do you want the torque and power after 120km/h or the jack the rabbit take offs and ability to do burnouts.

P-Platers no doubt love the commodore V6 so they can sit at the lights and tear away at their opposition (until they hit second gear and get reeled in). Falcon owners appreciate the better base for mods and spell the word talk T-O-R-Q-U-E which isnt in a commodore V6 vocabulary.

oneredED wrote:Owner: Justin
Vehicle: 1992 Supercharged VP Commodore
Dyno Power Results: 314 rwhp (234 rwkw)
Best Official Times Recorded: 12.50 sec @ 108mph
Modifications:

* 16 PSI Universal Power-up Pulley Kit
* Supercharged V6 Intercooler Kit
* Front Mount Intercooler and Plumbing
* Intercooler Mounting Accessory Kit
* 3" Mandrel Bent Cat Back Exhaust
* HM Stainless Extractors
* MAF-less tune
* LSD (3.46 Ratio)

Owner: Michael Gordon
Vehicle: 1998 Supercharged VT SS Commodore
Dyno Power Results: 296 rwhp (221 rwkw)
Best Official Times Recorded: 12.60 sec @ 106mph
Modifications:

* 17 PSI Universal Power-up Pulley Kit
* Supercharged V6 Intercooler Kit
* Front Mount Intercooler and Plumbing
* Intercooler Mounting Accessory Kit
* Hot Cam
* Twin Exhaust
* Extractors
* Manifold Heat Insulator
* LSD (3.73 Ratio)

ETC ETC. None of these cars have had an insane amount of money spent on them. Full exhaust, pulley kit, intercooler kit seems to be the norm.

gerendasi wrote:No comment on this thread

Rollin wrote:
VP don't come with blowers, so there is your 2.5k goooone, just for the engine conversion. 234rwkw is fucken pathetic on 16psi boost - BI6TIM makes nearly that much on 8psi with a rising rate reg and stock ECU! VTSS makes 221rwkw on 17psi, which is even worse! I reckon it would cost you 2.5k just for the cam and exhaust, if you had to pay for labour too. And 17psi with a cam is more airflow than with a stocker too.

Teh V6 is teh ghey.

Rollin wrote:I didn't say the cars weren't fast, I said the engines made shit power on lots of boost. I didn't even bother mentioning my car makes 270rwkw on only 10psi....

The reason they are going fast is because the cars they are in are a lot lighter than the eqivalent e-series model, and I'm willing to bet that none of those cars pulled those times with street tyres, and that there was at least a cursery amount of attention paid to the suspension setup. I reckon a stock ED 4.0 would pull an easy 13 in a KE70, but does that make the engine 'good' because it makes the car it is in go fast?

E-series cars with that power level don't go that fast because bugger all people run slicks, and bugger all people have 'drag' setup suspension - usually we are all down in the weeds, sikent styles. Also bear in mind that people understate their mods - how many times have you heard genIII owners say they pull 11s "unopened", but upon further questioning you find they have a bigger throttle body, MAFless tune, intake manifold, valvesprings, bigger valves and head porting?

OED666 does a 13.8 with 160rwkw, you think he could do no better than a 13.5 with an extra 74rwkw?

You have to admit that the 3.8 is hardly an efficient motor if it requires damn near twice the boost to make the same power output as a 4.0.

I'm buggered and about to go to bed, but I wouldn't mind Eabaturbo piping up in this thread and giving us his previous best times, and the power outputs they were achieved on - IMHO they wouldn't be far shy of the commo boys, while using a motor from the wreckers and less boost.

Just having a quick flick through Hiboost's build thread, he claims a 12.5@105.7mph with 250rwkw at 13psi in stinking hot weather, with axle tramp, and the auto apparently shifting at 4000rpm.