EF ECTIV wrote:looks like ford are onto a good thing... Been a while coming with the V8s unfortunately... add intercooler,
up the boost and away you go... factory charged v8=winnah...
Mr_4.0 wrote:I work for fords. All these questions have answers. Sucks I'd be risked my job to answer them.
burnt turtle wrote:Mr_4.0 wrote:I work for fords. All these questions have answers. Sucks I'd be risked my job to answer them.
hahahaha so do i, trying to make yaself feel good??
TUFED6 wrote:WRX's sound like broken tractors. Not just HIV, full blown AIDS...
stevo wrote:Why would they make it more then 335? There is no need at the moment....
Mr_4.0 wrote:Testing seen a lot more than 335 odd kw.
Mr_4.0 wrote:I understand that. Are u just out to try rip on me? Apart from the obvious (economy, emissions, no big need to over power the falcon right now) there were very specific reasons with the car as to why power was curbed. Very specific.
Dumpsta wrote:I remember hearing the FG1's had understated power figures (meaning they made more then what it said in print) and the VE's has overstated... is this true? Kudo's to ford if it is..
Will be interesting to see what a HO makes... and if they do... Is it a certain thing?
Mr_4.0 wrote:I understand that. Are u just out to try rip on me? Apart from the obvious (economy, emissions, no big need to over power the falcon right now) there were very specific reasons with the car as to why power was curbed. Very specific.
needfordspeed wrote:Pretty sure burnt turtle only works for a dealer, I doubt he knows anything
Dumpsta wrote:I remember hearing the FG1's had understated power figures (meaning they made more then what it said in print) and the VE's has overstated... is this true? Kudo's to ford if it is..
Will be interesting to see what a HO makes... and if they do... Is it a certain thing?
Dumpsta wrote:I remember hearing the FG1's had understated power figures (meaning they made more then what it said in print) and the VE's has overstated... is this true? Kudo's to ford if it is..
Sundeep wrote:I've heard of FG F6's pulling 300 even KW's out of the box, and seen posts on AFF abou them running 12.3's.
Rollin wrote:Watch this space people - the man from the bush can steer
bushman wrote:ALL ARGUEING AND KEYBOARD FIGHTING ASIDE, AS LONG AS IT DOES A GOOD SKID WHO GIVES A TUPPANY ****
EFFalcon wrote:Its a shame windsors have such a bad rep with eseries.
in everything else they were used in they were pretty good
NickosEL wrote:EFFalcon wrote:Its a shame windsors have such a bad rep with eseries.
in everything else they were used in they were pretty good
its only coz they were the first of the V8's in a long time....then those pesky E7 heads! Cant do much with those, But I do agree, windosr is a great motor that doesnt get much love in Aus as it does in the ol US of A. Mention the numbers 5 point Oh in the states, and think performace, mention 5 point Oh in aus and the usal response is "what, 5 point slow".
Troutman wrote:In US applications such as the Crown Victoria, the Windsor was replaced by the Modular OHC engine at the same time that Australia received the former as a 'new' engine. Instead of 1992, we got the Modular engine in 2002. Make of this what you will.
The updated GT's 0-100 time is clamed by the manufacturer as 4.9 seconds, compared to 5.1 for the F6. link I thought I read somewhere that the XR6 Turbo's time was 5.1 seconds also, but at least the on-paper numbers put the V8 slightly ahead.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users