Boosted Falcon

hey people i was reading wheels mag and the motor mag and they both had the fg gt and i looked at the 0 to 100 times and both where diferent the wheels said it will take 6.4sec to 100 and motor said 5.9sec im desapinted why is it slower then the xr6t and the f6

put it in the right section mate

k sorry what is the right section lol sorry

ed xr6 wrote: i looked at the 0 to 100 times and both where diferent the wheels said it will take 6.4sec to 100 and motor said 5.9sec im desapinted why is it slower then the xr6t and the f6

is this some sort of joke? It'd have to be....

ed xr6 wrote:hey people i was reading wheels mag and the motor mag and they both had the fg gt and i looked at the 0 to 100 times and both where diferent the wheels said it will take 6.4sec to 100 and motor said 5.9sec im desapinted why is it slower then the xr6t and the f6

becouse it is a v8

yeah those big clunker's will never catch the 6 t's. they are heavier and wouldn't have the low down torque the 6 produces. not to say they are not a good thing, just a little slower and probably use more fuel and and

crap thread moved

Wheels do their acceleration times 2-up with at least half a tank of fuel, and it seems they won't keep trying until they believe they have the best time. Motor try to get the best times, and (WRX style) don't mind trying to kill the car to do it. 6000rpm clutch dumps in a WRX will pull a sick time, but you can only do it 5 times till you need a new $700 clutch.

You can only realistically compare car magazine times on the same day at the same track. Most of the FG times so far were all timed on the Ford press release of the FG, Ford wouldn't be too happy with the press flogging the living crap out of their cars on their first time out.

Oh yeah, IMO comparing random times from random car magazines is fucking gay, and ultra AFF spec. If you think that's offensive, I suggest you complain to http://www.fordforums.com.au or the like.