Dr Z

More "tart and hype" as a pathetic substitute for performance. More stickers = more street credibility! Ford and/or FPV...stop dreaming up more of this silliness and give the fans what they really want.

Eugene, thank you for your time and energy to arrange a bulk buy. If you have 1 available for me, I would appreciate it. PM me for payment details. Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

Qiksmurf played "baby games" at LS1 and I sincerely hope the Mods will not allow our fun and informative forums to be lowered in standard by any similar behaviour.

Congratulations Vuster. I hope you have a more enjoyable driving choice next time around. As for the 5.73/14.02, Motor did NOT confirm those times and they did not mention they ran those numbers where usually they explain particulars about how they reached certain times. It is therefore a widely held belief that the 5.73/14.02 were figures provided by FPV, as were the comparative 6-speed GT figures which showed the GT a touch quicker over the quarter mile. I will email Michael Taylor to seek clarification and/or a correction in their figures then report back here. Safe and happy driving...Dr Z. :banghead:

Below are yearly summary VFACTS figures: Note that Ford Falcon sales have fallen by 7836 units, from 73220 in 2003 to 65384 in 2004. There were 13583 Ford Territory sales and it appears statistically and anecdotally significant that the Territory may be cannibalising Falcon sales. Dec 04 / YTD 04 - Dec 03 / YTD 03 Ford Ford Cougar 2 83 Ford Courier 4X2 256 2981 167 2521 Ford Courier 4X4 320 4096 290 3658 Ford Econovan Van 83 1181 76 1082 Ford Escape 231 3252 338 3238 Ford Explorer 59 891 95 1467 Ford F250 4X2 10 179 6 264 Ford F250 4X4 79 1567 89 1545 Ford F350 4X2 4 68 5 112 Ford F350 4X4 1 37 3 35 Ford Fairlane 97 2016 335 2389 Ford Falcon 5608 65384 6331 73220 Ford Falcon Ute 1694 20123 1697 20212 Ford Fiesta 481 3930 Ford Focus 1032 12565 1000 12502 Ford Laser 1 369 Ford LTD 16 174 10 146 Ford Territory 2184 13583 Ford Transit 193 2233 180 2196 Ford Transit Bus 33 396 5 263 Ford Transit C/C 55 513 32 510 TOTAL Ford 12436 135172 10662 126581 Expensive Daewoo Expensive Daewoo Adventra 147 2500 61 78 Expensive Daewoo Astra 1657 24699 2161 26139 Expensive Daewoo Astra Convertible 174 1503 98 2470 Expensive Daewoo Barina 644 7349 186 4764 Expensive Daewoo Caprice 93 1011 93 1061 Expensive Daewoo Combo 36 1204 82 1188 Expensive Daewoo Late model camira 6038 79170 6655 86553 Expensive Daewoo Cruze 249 2855 338 3371 Expensive Daewoo Frontera 137 Expensive Daewoo Jackaroo 186 128 1641 Expensive Daewoo Monaro 224 2656 158 2889 Expensive Daewoo Rodeo 4X2 1113 13128 690 10088 Expensive Daewoo Rodeo 4X4 975 10927 756 9138 Expensive Daewoo Statesman 277 3640 248 4363 Expensive Daewoo Utility 4X2 1917 20813 1855 17211 Expensive Daewoo Utility 4X4 112 1559 Expensive Daewoo Vectra (4 cyl) 162 1514 310 1423 Expensive Daewoo Vectra CDX 74 1982 251 1390 Expensive Daewoo Vectra V6 14 Expensive Daewoo Zafira 73 1331 102 1494 TOTAL Expensive Daewoo 13965 178027 14172 175412 Toyota Toyota Avalon 377 5584 658 6064 Toyota Avensis 63 939 118 1253 Toyota Camry (4 cyl) 3027 26286 2353 25261 Toyota Camry V6 1463 14070 1062 13279 Toyota Celica 11 308 23 445 Toyota Coaster 23 399 20 319 Toyota Corolla 2793 39053 3037 36128 Toyota Dyna (2.5t) 11 1 12 Toyota Dyna (3.5t) 1 108 15 204 Toyota Dyna (7.5t) 1 5 4 18 Toyota Dyna 150 23 6 20 Toyota Echo 1649 17879 1336 16986 Toyota Hiace Bus 67 1148 128 1524 Toyota Hiace Van 358 5270 613 6407 Toyota Hilux 4X2 1000 13911 976 12292 Toyota Hilux 4X4 905 14166 1089 13591 Toyota Kluger 596 7655 686 1380 Toyota Landcruiser PU/CC 565 6773 547 5881 Toyota Landcruiser Wagon 1197 13917 1151 14425 Toyota MR2 7 84 12 161 Toyota Prado 1447 16758 1415 14639 Toyota Prius 133 1094 26 292 Toyota RAV4 1086 13220 1053 12026 Toyota Tarago 205 2930 182 2736 Toyota Townace 146 66 1027 TOTAL Toyota 16974 201737 16577 186370 Mitsubishi Mitsubishi Canter 148 1727 171 1391 Mitsubishi Canter (7.5t) 2 80 4 45 Mitsubishi Challenger 70 1209 122 1590 Mitsubishi Colt 188 717 Mitsubishi Express 207 2434 179 2029 Mitsubishi F-Series (15t) 24 191 16 165 Mitsubishi Fighter (15t) 43 376 33 308 Mitsubishi Fighter (7.5t) 46 505 61 430 Mitsubishi Grandis 46 397 Mitsubishi Lancer 1275 13685 1490 17931 Mitsubishi Magna V6 1195 14250 1551 21541 Mitsubishi Mirage 6 2086 808 6661 Mitsubishi Nimbus 29 16 233 Mitsubishi Outlander 404 3328 223 3011 Mitsubishi Pajero 487 6984 667 7580 Mitsubishi Pajero iO 2 2 175 Mitsubishi Rosa Bus 61 418 34 260 Mitsubishi Starwagon 4x2 23 6 411 Mitsubishi Triton 4X2 242 3195 282 3433 Mitsubishi Triton 4X4 405 3613 255 3470 Mitsubishi Verada 215 1718 109 2125 TOTAL Mitsubishi 5064 56967 6029 72789 Safe and happy driving...Dr Z. :banghead:

Thanks for the passionate contributions everyone. Rather than "just accept the fact and move on" etc we can communicate to FPV our displeasure NOW so they know the market will not tolerate "tart and hype" as a pathetic substitute for "Total Performance" when they put out "Australia's next motoring icon". This is the bottom line... The reason for threads like this is so that FPV has an opportunity to more clearly understand why their sales are falling as fast as their torque curve after 4250RPM... "tart and hype" is NOT a long term sustainable substitute for "Total Performance". We all want FPV to enjoy a long prosperous and credible tenure, so let us help them understand that their "Total Performance" mantra should actually mean something on the streets. If we do anything less than this, FPV may not be around long enough for us to enjoy their offerings because their lack of market and street credibility will sink them to this unsustainable business model... Falling revenue + rising costs = no more FPV. Apart from straight-line performance times, based on PCOTY 2004, Motor has demonstrated that Holden/HSV cars are quicker around the track than the Ford/FPV "Total Performance" hero cars, as evidenced here: Winton lap times: FPV F6 Typhoon: 1:46.46 Ford XR6T: 1:46.28 FPV GT: 1:45.57 Expensive Daewoo Late model camira SS: 1:45.5 HSV Clubsport R8: 1:43.50 No one should feel the need to mod their FPV so it can get close to straight-line and track performance times of a Expensive Daewoo SS. No one! For everyone that accepts "near enough is good enough" that is just one more nail in FPV's coffin. Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

Or rather than "just accept the fact and move on" etc we can communicate to FPV our displeasure NOW so they know the market will not tolerate "tart and hype" as a pathetic substitute for "Total Performance" when they put out "Australia's next motoring icon". This is the bottom line... The reason for threads like this is so that FPV has an opportunity to more clearly understand why their sales are falling as fast as their torque curve after 4250RPM... "tart and hype" is NOT a long term sustainable substitute for "Total Performance". We all want FPV to enjoy a long prosperous and credible tenure, so let us help them understand that their "Total Performance" mantra should actually mean something on the streets. If we do anything less than this, FPV may not be around long enough for us to enjoy their offerings because their lack of market and street credibility will sink them to this unsustainable business model... Falling revenue + rising costs = no more FPV. Apart from straight-line performance times, based on PCOTY 2004, Motor has demonstrated that Holden/HSV cars are quicker around the track than the Ford/FPV "Total Performance" hero cars, as evidenced here: Winton lap times: FPV F6 Typhoon: 1:46.46 Ford XR6T: 1:46.28 FPV GT: 1:45.57 Expensive Daewoo Late model camira SS: 1:45.5 HSV Clubsport R8: 1:43.50 No one should feel the need to mod their FPV so it can get close to straight-line and track performance times of a Expensive Daewoo SS. No one! For everyone that accepts "near enough is good enough" that is just one more nail in FPV's coffin. Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

Qiksmurf, it doesnt hurt to get it checked out. I hope other F6 owners can help clarify your situation.

RATT, you are a great guy, very helpful and knowledgable, I would recommend you to anyone wanting to buy a Ford/FPV and I may very well buy my next Ford/FPV from you. In addition, I agree with you here 100%! FPV under-delivered on the Mk I GT and GT-P, had the chance to do something about it for the Mk II GT and GT-P but just kept up with their primary marketing philosophy of "more tart and hype". They failed to deliver a "Total Performance" competitive product range so then intentionally CRIPPLED the F6 after all of the 2004 hype to ensure its product placement below the GT and GT-P. Rather than do this why not uplift the entire product range in "Total Performance"? What I have been saying all along is rather than FPV playing to their strength of "tart and hype" how about FPV takes its loyal customer base seriously and spends some R&D dollars to deliver the "Total Performance" we all seek. While some of you may be happy to accept "good but not great" from Ford/FPV I am not. Help FPV to better understand why their sales are falling. "Tart and hype" does not cut it....real "Total Performance" does! FPV, forget "tart and hype". Let your "Total Performance" mantra do the talking on the street! Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

Good post Mr X..good summary..FPV OVER-SELLS and UNDER-DELIVERS. I can undesrtand current F6 owners loving their car..that's great...it is a "good but not great" car, keep loving it! But FPV should be held accountable for this type of peurile hyped nonsense (all real FPV quotes) leading up to the F6 launch buildup that at best insults the intelligence of its prospective customers and at worst is deceptive misleading advertising: ..."new benchmark in the Australian high performance car segment"... ..."mind blowing F6 Typhoon"... ..."F6 Typhoon is set to be the next Australian motoring icon"... ..."FPV's mantra of Total Performance"... etc. ..when in REALITY for an extra $13,745 the F6 is a "tarted up" XR6T that is barely consistently quicker than a stock XR6T and much slower than an APS Phase I XR6T. Call that a "new benchmark", "mind blowing", "next Australian motoring icon" and "Total Performance"? FPV, if that is the best you want to offer us then expect your declining FPV sales to continue while HSV gleefully grabs your bang-for-buck high performance market share. Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

Before everyone gets caught up on absolute numbers, consider the relative numbers: WRX = 168kW WRX STi = 195kW STi has a 27/168 = 16% increase in maximum power. XR6T = 240kW F6 = 270kW F6 has a 30/240 = 12.5% increase in maximum power. Now that is not a big relative difference...and that's the point. It is not necessarily the size of the maximum power but the shape of the power and torque curves across the entire RPM range that are important determinants of straight-line performance. We have all seen the F6 dyno with the crippled torque curve at 4250RPM, which, together with gearing, explains why it is barely quicker than an XR6T. FPV did not take the opportunity to add more grunt to the Mk II GT and GT-P so they did the only thing they painted themselves in a corner to do..."dumb down" the F6 to put it in its place. Of course, the "smart" sustainable long-term business growth choice would have been to increase the grunt of all of them, but no doubt some silly decals and other "tarting up and hype" make up for all of that right?. Another missed opportunity FPV. Perhaps next time? David Flint, your fans are still waiting for some explanations. Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

It warms my heart to see F6 owners or any car owners enjoying their cars, but why as Ford/FPV fans should we always accept "good but not great"? The F6 Typhoon is still a good car as a "tarted up" XR6T that costs $13,745 more, though FPV hyped it as a VERY SPECIAL car. OwnaXR6T, great summary analogy...excellent WRX - STI comparison. Compared to the Ford XR6T, the FPV F6 Typhoon could have been as special as the STI is to the WRX. FPV's mantra is "Total Performance". Dig deeper, ask around. During concept testing it WAS special but Marketing canned the idea of a VERY SPECIAL high performance car. FPV just does not want to publicly admit they "dumbed down" the F6 because they have not given the GT more grunt than it too deserves. They broke 2 simple rules of "Business Growth 101": 1. Inadequate product placement with the F6, GT and GT-P. 2. Insufficient product differentiation to improve F6, GT and GT-P over competitors. FPV, it is REAL product differentiation (improved products compared to competitors) rather than PERCEIVED product differentiation (pumping out hyped up marketing drivel) that will contribute to sustainable long term business success. FPV, for your sake and ours, forget the hype and give us hope. Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

Allow me to explain the "hard to explain" bit. I have explained this comprehensively in a number of Typhoon threads around here, but to keep it simple...FPV run an ultra conservative tune so that the torque curve falls off a cliff at 4250RPM while having a bigger intercooler with standard injectors. Simply not good enough FPV. Good car...a tweaked XR6T, though FPV hyped it as a very special car. Let APS finish the job that FPV started to free the top-end for you and while they are at it, they can give the bottom-end and mid-range more urge too. Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

Good posts everyone. To clarify some of the questions/comments, lets do an XR6T versus F6 performance comparison: 1. Wheels magazine: XR6T 0-400m: 14.3s F6 0-400m: 14.6s Win for XR6T. Performance tally: XR6T 1 F6 0 2. Motor magazine: XR6T 0-400m: 14.14s (on a 40 degree day at Avalon airport!) F6 0-400m: 14.64s (on a 25 degree day) Win for XR6T. Performance tally: XR6T 2 F6 0 3. Motor magazine: XR6T best lap around Winton: 1:46.28 F6 best lap around Winton: 1:46.46 (on a 5 degree cooler day than XR6T!) Win for XR6T. Performance tally: XR6T 3 F6 0 Do you think for an extra $13,745 we ought to expect a little more Performance from a Ford Performance Vehicle? Why don't we get it? Why do Ford/FPV fans have to accept "good but not great" time and time again? In the case of the F6, running standard injectors and a very conservative tune after 4000RPM is the clear answer. Check out the F6 dyno sheets and it is clear to everyone who can read a dyno sheet. So why did this happen? Marketing or warranty reasons? Perhaps. Even if that is the case, perhaps Ford/FPV product placement and after-sales support needs a serious re-think, otherwise how do we explain that HSV can deliver a Clubsport that runs consistent 13s quarter miles with full warranty? My overarching point is FPV promised something VERY SPECIAL and they did NOT deliver! All the above evidence so far suggests that the F6 is NOT very special compared to the already great bang-for-bucks value XR6T. As Ford/FPV fans we should not have to always settle for second best. FPV, how about making quick reliable cars then supporting them with good after-sales service and honouring warranty or the market will continue to vote with their wallets as they are doing now with declining FPV sales compared to HSV. David Flint, or anyone from FPV, we are still waiting for your response. Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

Good posts everyone. To clarify some of the questions/comments, lets do an XR6T versus F6 performance comparison: 1. Wheels magazine: XR6T 0-400m: 14.3s F6 0-400m: 14.6s Win for XR6T. Performance tally: XR6T 1 F6 0 2. Motor magazine: XR6T 0-400m: 14.14s (on a 40 degree day at Avalon airport!) F6 0-400m: 14.64s (on a 25 degree day) Win for XR6T. Performance tally: XR6T 2 F6 0 3. Motor magazine: XR6T best lap around Winton: 1:46.28 F6 best lap around Winton: 1:46.46 (on a 5 degree cooler day than XR6T!) Win for XR6T. Performance tally: XR6T 3 F6 0 Do you think for an extra $13,745 we ought to expect a little more Performance from a Ford Performance Vehicle? Why don't we get it? Why do Ford/FPV fans have to accept "good but not great" time and time again? In the case of the F6, running standard injectors and a very conservative tune after 4000RPM is the clear answer. Check out the F6 dyno sheets and it is clear to everyone who can read a dyno sheet. So why did this happen? Marketing or warranty reasons? Perhaps. Even if that is the case, perhaps Ford/FPV product placement and after-sales support needs a serious re-think, otherwise how do we explain that HSV can deliver a Clubsport that runs consistent 13s quarter miles with full warranty? My overarching point is FPV promised something VERY SPECIAL and they did NOT deliver! All the above evidence so far suggests that the F6 is NOT very special compared to the already great bang-for-bucks value XR6T. As Ford/FPV fans we should not have to always settle for second best. FPV, how about making quick reliable cars then supporting them with good after-sales service and honouring warranty or the market will continue to vote with their wallets as they are doing now with declining FPV sales compared to HSV. David Flint, or anyone from FPV, we are still waiting for your response. Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

Great post. Dont get me wrong, I LOVE the GT, it will most likely be my next fun car..I just want mine to come with an APS Twin Turbo to compensate for lack of Ford/FPV grunt! Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

What a crock of You have obviously never driven the GT or compared it against the XR8 or XR6T going by your stupid comments. To bag the GT because of Advertising hype is bloody ignorant. The GT is streets ahead of the XR8, the XR8 handles like a XR6T with a great fat lump of lead in the front bumper. The GT just tarted up, cops mate, the finish of the GT is streets ahead of the XR's, one of the main reasons for dumping the 'Silverhawk' was the finish in it looked cheap compared to the GT. Comparing the BA GT to the XY GT is stupid (yes, FPV got it right by the morphing illusion) this car is so far ahead of the XY and so it should be after 30 odd years of technology. Try driving the XY around like you can the BA and you will end up with a face full of mountain/tree and motor. The GT is the best Aussie touring car on our roads today, absolutely 's on anything the opposition can throw at it for all round driving superiority. Personally I would not even consider a F6, and agree with your comments on that car, but your comments on the GT are just crap, although you are entitled to your opinion and I will defend your right to air them, vigourously, no matter how ill informed, inane and stupid they are. Cheers Mate, A proud GT owner.............over to you 'mercturbo'..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good passionate post that I mostly agree with but not necessarily the way you chose to blow your gasket. For the record, I have driven a few GT's but since it felt like driving a tarted up XR8, as in it only started to get going at 3500RPM then by 6000RPM it was all over, I chose the XR6T. Each to their own. You intentionally missed the context about straight-line performance where the XY GT was way ahead of its competition in its OWN era, but the current GT is marginally ahead of a stock Expensive Daewoo SS, let alone heaps behind HSV. FPV's mantra is "Total Performance". I don't know how they measure performance but it certainly isn't in terms of straight-line performance. Ford/FPV are obviously NOT serious about straight-line performance that could deliver heaps of market and street credibility. The XR6T outsells the XR8 by about 10 to 1. The current GT sales have fallen off a cliff compared to when people got intially excited about the GT brand name when it first came out. We all know that if they did not resurrect the GT brand name, they would have sold far fewer than they did. The current GT is a good car, but like the F6, could have been very special, especially carrying that GT moniker. In short, the current GT does NOT stand out above the competition like its predecessor did but is a fair way behind it in straight-line performance (eg VZ Clubbie) so IMHO it is NOT worthy of the GT name because in the eyes of the increasingly aware market who have voted with their wallet, it merely resembles a tarted up XR8. Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

While I believe this story, it is NOT indicative of the mid-range acceleration of an APS Phase II XR6T. Take a stock auto GT and an APS Phase II XR6T and do this 100 times. You will unlikely see the GT come anywhere close. It amazes me that anyone who has compared power and torque curves of a stock auto GT and APS Phase II XR6T could see this was in any way possible, all other things being equal. As for choosing, this would be my preference: 1. GT, then get an APS Twin Turbo for 15K. 2. XR6T, then get an APS Phase anything (whatever you prefer). Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

Interesting points, but lets be rational here. If APS can meet all legal requirements on tweaked XR6T's, and the F6 is really just a tweaked XR6T, then surely Ford can absorb the costs even more easily. In short, I dont believe emissions requirements to be the issue. The F6 is sub-optimally tuned with standard injectors for marketing and warranty reasons. I agree with Zap's theory that the F6 is intentionally dumbed down so that frustrated owners modify it, only for Ford/FPV to decline their driveline warranty. Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

Below are some quotes from FPV's web site for the F6 Typhoon in orange together with my observations. Feel free to share your own opinions/thoughts/views so that we can collectively contribute towards separating reality from marketing drivel so perhaps they can get it right next time. Ford Performance Vehicles has set a new benchmark in the Australian high performance car segment with the mind blowing F6 Typhoon. Where is the evidence? Oh, you mean the high level of 550Nm of Torque? That's the ONLY measure? If you make statements like this, support it with something credible. We will get back to that Torque below. The F6 Typhoon is set to be the next Australian motoring icon and has joined the already proven FPV line-up, further reinforcing FPV's mantra of Total Performance. Once again, show us the evidence. The only evidence the market sees is that HSV is continuing to lead the way on Total Performance in a straight line, and has been doing so for far too long now. However, the real story is torque. All 550Nm on tap from just 2000 rpm and remaining constant all the way through to 4250 rpm. Constant Torque curve? Has anyone at FPV seen a dyno run for an F6 Typhoon. Granted it is NEARLY constant up to 4250RPM, but then it drops down a cliff into the abyss. Why was it necessary to CRIPPLE the power output at 4250RPM? To protect your ailing GT sales? There appear to be no logical reasons to do this other than a marketing reason. Such a conservative state of tune with STANDARD injectors and a bigger intercooler? Why not bigger injectors and crank the F6 up to at least 330kW..ahh marketing got in the way. Anyone here believe that FPV = Total Performance? If so, what do you use to measure performance? Certainly not straight-line performance. At least HSV bothers to share their times on their websites and makes it a point to give their interpretation of performance some street and market credibility. Looking forward to everyone's contribution, especially FPV's. Come on David Flint, you know you really want to reply! Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

For all the reasons mentioned here and lots of other places, I would ONLY get an F6 over an XR6T if I could stick at least an APS Phase II in it so it has 300+ rwkW. Otherwise, kept stock, stick with XR6T, get better brakes (factory premium or after market), Luxo Pack etc. and save some money. that's if I was doing a new XR6T vs new F6 comparison. However, I would not go from a current XR6T to an F6...IMHO, it is NOT worth the $30,000+ difference in value. If you need a reason to cancel your F6 order, tell your dealer that you believed that the F6 had a flat torque curve because you believed in the FPV marketing hype, but when you saw the actual dyno figures (see APS site for example), it is clear that the torque curve falls off a cliff at the top end to "dumb down" its potential so that the marketing lemmings can protect the sales-falling hyper-ailing "GT" brand name. In reality, the F6 is slower than an APS Phase I in straight-line performance, and that should NEVER have been the case. The GT should never have been called a GT let alone Ford/FPV marketing running an advertisement with the XY GT "morphing" into the current GT. The XY GT was streets ahead of it competition. The current GT is just a tarted up XR8 just like the F6 is a tarted up XR6T! Ridiculous over-the-top so-far-removed-from-reality marketing hype for GT and F6. Ford/FPV...nowhere to hide now...build better performing cars or let Holden/HSV continue the performance domination they are currently enjoying. Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

Short answer: Check out a stock XR6T torque curve on a dyno run..it doesn't fall off a cliff like the F6 torque curve does at top end which clearly demonstrates how FPV's tune of the F6 is CRIPPLED by running standard injectors at lower boosts than it could with bigger injectors. Long answer: Read the posts of hypnodoc and Dr Z...that's a second opinion from two Doctors who happen to agree with each other. Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

I posted this below in another forum...please folks, lets stop pretending that the Ford/FPV marketing-hyped F6 is anything more than a slightly tweaked XR6T. That is the reality we have to deal with. Also, the prevously quoted times of 5.73/14.01 in Motor were not Motor's times, but the times given to them by FPV. Mick Taylor (former Motor Editor) also posted in that other forum today at 12:03pm and he is clearly disappointed at the inability of the F6 to live up to its potential as seen in his quote: "well boys, it was a stinking hot day, but that's not the point. the point is that all three cars were acceleration tested on the same piece of road, in identical humidity and in identical ambient. in other words, back to back, just as you'd find it if you took on another car at the lights. also, all three cars ran the same driver, dean evans - the self-professed (and very probably true) master of acceleration testing. we are fans of the F6. just disappointed in it, and disappointed in FPV's handling of the whole situation pre-christmas. In fact, we just wish FPV would let the car live free on its own engineering capacity, not reigned in by marketing boffins. then, I reckon, you'd see a car to shout from the hilltops about..." Below is my post in that forum.. ______________________ As much wishful thinking we all want to share about the F6, myself included, this is what we do know about the stock (unmodified) F6 far: * No one has driven it sub-14 down the quarter, not one journalist or enthusiast we know about. Even if someone miraculously did do a near-perfect launch, it is very clear it is NOT a consistent sub-14 quarter mile car. A sub-14 quarter time COULD happen with a perfect launch though extremely unlikely given that no one has done it yet. Even if someone does, as both Wheels and Motor have shown, it is far more likely to deliver REAL WORLD consistent 14 second times, which as we know, is barely quicker than a stock XR6T. * As hypnodoc and I have identically said on different forums, the low-down torque delivery and gearing gives the "bumometer" feeling that the F6 is much quicker than an XR6T, but the straight-line performance reality tells a completely different story. * Looking at an APS dyno run of a stock F6: APS F6 Typhoon ...the tapered off torque curve...hey FPV, you said the torque curve was flat?... ...confirms the low-mid range torque delivery the "bumometer" feels but FPV's intent on keeping the power down at the top range with lower boost on standard injectors is clearly evident. This is why APS can unleash more delivery down low AND the top end with bigger injectors, less conservative state of tune as well as a freer flowing exhaust to reduce backpressure through higher boosting. * Given the auto XR6Ts are straight-line performance quicker than their manual transmission counterparts, owing to continuous turbo spooling by constant depression on the loud pedal, it would be expected than once a suitable auto transmission is found for the F6, its straight-line performance times would also improve. Manuals may be more fun to drive, but the autos have shown to be consistently straight-line performance quicker for XR6T's and their modified variants, F6 included. In essence, FPV has seriously "dumbed down" the top-end performance capability of the F6 which is why it does not deliver the straight-line performance times everyone is hoping to see. Rather than wishfully believing it SHOULD be quicker, lets just accept the reality that in its current state of FPV tune it isnt, but if you want it to go quicker see APS. Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

I agree with Qiksmurf here. If I had to START buying a new car, I would choose the F6 over the XR6T because of the extra value I see in a new vs new comparison, but given that I already had a 4 month old XR6T I could not see a $30,000+ value difference. Having said all that, and knowing the auto is straight-line performance quicker in the XR6T as would be expected in the F6 as well, a good APS Edit or APS Phase anything would deliver even more "Whoosh factor" fun! Best wishes in your choice Panda...If I was making your choice, I'd do F6 with APS Edit! Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.

Just responding to Qiksmurf's opinion about APS XR6T vs F6 comparisons. To clarify.. Do I believe it is financially worthwhile to upgrade from an XR6T to an F6? No, for reasons already mentioned. If you do not currently have an XR6T, do I believe an F6 would be a good buy compared to an XR6T? Yes, though I would still wait for the quicker auto option sometime this year and stick an APS Phase II equivalent in it for that 300rwkW. Best of both worlds...F6 and APS! Since this is a forum for opinions, these are my opinions only and I backed my opinions by following my own advice, for a change. Safe and happy driving...Dr Z.