tquarrell

I'm happy with my BF goodrich's, 18" 245's got quoted $345. The profiler g force is their latest release, made in france, Y (300km/h+) speed rating, believe they are made by michelin (michelin own them, hence bfg's name appearing in world rally).

if it only happens in first, second or third I'd say it's traction. Maybe the tyres are stuffed? If you want more traction you can go with wider wheels/tyres, lower tyre pressure, better quality tyres, otherwise it's a case of beeing easy on the throttle in lower gears

Far out, think I'd give up after the second box. You know what's been breaking in them? Have they been stock boxes (what mods)? How much power you putting through them? You use the car for towing or do many burnouts? Also came accross the 4r100 in the states that's used with the 5.4 supercharged lightnings, meant to be good for 1000ftlbs but once again I don't know whether they can be fitted to the 4.0 litre bell housing/block. From this article, it appears they replaced the c6, and therefore might fit? Any guys know who to ask to get some answers? http://www.ford-trucks.com/article/idx/0/0...ters_Guide.html Makes you wish ford just fitted it to the 5.4's and turbo's in the falcons to start with...

Hi all, After gettin a few extra killowatts and reading about all the crunched boxes around here, I thought I had better look into (consider) getting a stronger box. I don't like the c4's 1:1 top gear, nor do I like the stock 4 speeds fragility (maximum they will hold I've been told is less than 400rwkw, and wouldn't expect it to last long, having said that a stock box with valve body mod is expected to hold 360rwkw). I also learned that the only difference between the xr8/gt (520nm) 4sp auto and the xr6T (450nm) was the valvebody. Kewish offer a valve body upgrade for $880. Anyway, I came accross this and just wondered if anyone knew whether they could be fitted to an xr6 turbo. It's a "Pro Street/Strip 4STB -- w/EOD ", has similar gearing to the 4sp stock box, can be fitted to small blocks (5.0l), big blocks, fe's and modulars (5.4) so does this mean they will bolt up to the xr6 turbo engine/bell housing? I'm no gearbox expert, but if they can fit the 5.0l and 5.4l, I assume they will fit a 4.0l, is this correct? The attraction of this box is the gearing (able to option a 2.84 1st, 13.6% shorter than stock, and identical 3rd and 4th ratio's to stock) and it's ratings of 900hp (approx 675kw) and 750ftlb (approx 1,060 nm), and there's also a "Higher HP Internal Modifications" option. The price is $2,395usd (approx $2,900AUS). So there's a few question I was hoping you guys could help me with. Can they be fitted to an xr6 turbo Are these available in oz? Are they any good? How many rwkw's would 675kw's at the fly equate to? http://www.fbperformance.com/NewSite/viewo...ssionID=42#Down

Hit the throttle at 60 and you're back to 1st gear in an auto, wheelspin galore!!!

Yeah, we all know what they needed to do to the monaro to get it to last (7litre le mans engine, hollinger gearbox and v8 supercar (aka ford 9" detroit locker) diff). Maybe the officials wouldn't let them have their own set of rules

Yeah, I'd probably get valve springs (did the guy that tuned the car mention anything about them?) or you could try getting it tuned somewhere else (if you aren't happy). I got my power in an auto without springs, cat or actuator and was going 13.4 @ 107mph (2.2sec 60ft) at the 1/4 with stock dunlops and less than 236rwkw (generic tune and fatigued fuel pump). Valve spring aren't a waste of money though, I got my peak power at about 4,200rpm, I'm sure I'd see well over 300 if I could get the thing to rev out in the top end better which I know exhaust and springs will do.

I have been looking into these a bit, apparently the tuners in Germany recon the current cars are under rated, and that they are in fact already 326hp (245kw) standard. Many of them are running 0-60mph in about 4.8sec stock. One of these things with a procede (like xede from what I can gather) and exhaust has 350rwhp (263rwkw) which they are running mid 12s with (on 275 ps2's). Apparently the stock turbo's are to small to go above 12psi but. Thought this might be of interest to some http://www.e90post.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=58

Fair enough, but every test in motor I've seen the xr6 has been pretty close to the xr8 in lap speed around a circuit, as fast or faster. And why was the typhoon able to lap quicker than the xr8 (it has only got 10kw more stock after all)? Still doesn't seem right to me. Maybe they couldn't alter the speed limiter in the xr6t or something (I guess they're still limited to 230km/h stock)? Be interested to know if there is another reason other than the engines power delivery. I guess I expected the T's to beat a 1.8l na celica by a bit more on what is renowned to be a hp track. Maybe they're just average drivers?

so why was the T's lap speed so slow? Have they had a weight penalty or some other penalty? The T should be able to do a lap at least within a second of the xr8. the ss in the tale end even did a lap 5 seconds faster than the T's best. Can anyone explain this?

Is car 99 even a T? It's fastest lap is 6 seconds slower than the xr8's fastest and almost 7 seconds slower than the typhoon. Also 4 seconds slower than vxr. That and it's lap speed is similiar to the celica and mini. The other T's aren't much better. Something doesn't seem right...

I've got that stock 18x8" rims and have fitted 235 bfg's all round (235 $245ea, 245 $345ea, that's the only reason). I think the quality of the tyre is more important than the size and my 235 bfg's have 1/2" wider tread face than the sp9000 245's and about 1" more than nankang ns2's, so not all tyres are the same despite thier stated size. Of more importance is the quality of the rubber obviously. Traction in the dry is pretty good. You obviously can't just stomp on the throttle, but with some decent throttle control it is possible accelerate quite rapidly (can't use full throttle in first at any speed, but). And besides, I think you're better off loosing traction than breaking gearboxes and cvs with to much traction. It's more fun to drive and traction control is always there for the wet or if you want a pretty mundane drive.

I love the T's, but I'm the first to admit there are not the best cars on the road. Calling a 5.0 v10 built at BMW's F1 engine facility a POS is quite frankly wrong. Sure some of the guys with these cars have an attitude problem, and it's fun humbling them out in the "real world", but that doesn't make the car a pos. The m5 and e63 are in my opinion 2 of the best sedans money can buy. As a comparison, there are some very fast vlt's around that pretty much beat most cars (ie 9/10 second cars that cost 15k or less) that doesn't make me want one, or make them a good car. There's much more to a car than the engine, or how fast it can throw you down the road.

I don't know, but given nizpro claim 330rwkw with their stage 2 cobra kit (totally stock exhaust), I'd suggest it would be higher than that.

If you want performance and not sound, why change the exhaust? I'd get another second hand stock exhaust (I've got one in the shed I paid $60 for, dump, cat and back that did 3,000km's). I've seen centre/rear T exhausts on ebay for $20 but don't know how old/good condition it's in. If you want performance, the edit is the first thing to do, however a $450 wog cooler will give you upto 20rwkw (worked fine with my stock computer/cai and bmc filter, however I never dynoed the car without the cooler).

I mounted my PWR trans cooler behind the passenger side fog light. I simply cut the corner out of the return (top) aluminium pipe where it turns from the radiator to run along side the engine. I chose there because I wanted it away from the turbo side of the engine, and I didn't want to put the trans cooler in front of the radiator/intercooler. Some guys put it in the top grille in front of the radiator, or lower intake in front of the intercooler (which would cool the transmission oil better, but at 100 + degrees I thought I'd avoid putting transmission oil there), some even put them under the car with there own electric fan. It's up to you really, this is just what I've done.

Yeah, I think that's the sensible way to go. I'm not going to rebuild mine, wait and see what the next falcon's like next year (ford will probably fall for the same early build glitches as the mk1, wait and see) or might try something different like a 335i BM (if not to dear second hand) M3, SRT8, don't know yet, just enjoying what I've got atm. 250 -300rwkw's isn't to be sneezed at though, I'd suggest that if you aren't happy with 290 - 320 at the wheels, your probably not goin to be satisfied with 340 - 370 on a bf either. No matter how much power you get, you seem to always want more....

Yeah, thanks Forcedxr6, I haven't got a boost gauge or had a trace put on a graph, but the power graph and seat of the pants says there's no boost control problems (what are the symptons to look for anyway?) in fact there are no problems at all that I know of, except for blowing a stupid ford budget 'elastic' type clamp off the intercooler pipe under the battery, got a bit excited in first gear on my way to the boat in melbourne, I just put it back on when I got home and it's sweet. Appart from the acceleration when you get into it, it feels totally stock. I have done the wd40 trick I learned off this forum, which helped. I thought actuator would only become a problem at higher boost levels anyway (aps don't change it until there phase 3 I believe, which is 17psi). So you think valve springs could be the cause of the lack of top end? Makes sense, but I haven't had the lopey/hunting idle problem (yet). I suppose I should change them, but I remember APS saying a freer flowing exhaust helps this problem, hence I'm contemplating changing the cat to a twin xr8/gt setup. On the road the top end feels great, so mybe it was just a traction issue on the dyno?? (I had less than 1/4 tank of fuel also). I'm a bit of a fan of the Russian space program approach to engineering, I.e. if it aint broke, don't fix it lol

I'm very impressed with the stock exhaust, with stock cat there are some big numbers being put through them, even higher rwkw number's with a cat (simon from xtreme knows how good they are). I am personally of the opinion that unless you're changing the engines bottom end, you don't need one (as is nizpro with their cobra kits). Having said all that, a better exhaust will let you produce the same power with lower boost which will help the valve springs etc. do it easier.

I think it's just display, don't know if it affected any numbers.... Base graph was with wog cooler, F6 cai, BMC filter and gapped plugs so I'm confident it's conservative if anything(the wog said with the latest ford tunes in the car, which I have, these things have 200-205 rwkw ussually, up from 180-190rwkw when originally released so if anything dyno may read a little low).

Yeah, I know, my hand obviously isn't as steady as I thought. Just figured out my printer's also a scanner (that could be useful in future lol). Anyway here's the scan. BTW driving at 100km/h in third confirms my calcs.

Yeah, that's the theory, ford quote figures at DIN or something (without auxilaries on the engine) and Expensive Daewoo quote with auxilaries (power steering, air con etc). The funny thing is though that in motor magazine put a few cars on the dyno (same day, dyno etc) back in may 05 a 290kw GT had 242rwkw's, and the 297kw clubsport r8 had 228rwkw's (xr6t had 193rwkw by the way and 250kw Expensive Daewoo ss/sv8 had 208rwkw). Definately don't quote rwkw's, a ford salesman tried to tell me the same thing about the au xr8 as well, they will do anything for a sale, sad thing is some people probably believe them

to help make sense of it, thought I'd mention 50kw increments on the y axis, 20km/h increments on the x axis, did over 185km/h with stock tune (I think he did 5800rpm, busy watching afr's), stopped at 170km/h on final tune

I haven't got afr's or boost dyno charts yet, these parts of the dyno was not working, afr's were being watched on a digital read out. Final tune starts at 1 lambada, then works it way done to .83/.84 pretty quick and holds it to readline, but wouldn't mind getting a trace on a chart to see it a bit more accurately. THe tuners done heaps of these things (he had done a car similar to mine, he used that tune and just adusted the fueling and timing in the top end til he was happy). Here's a power graph, sh*t quality pic but you get and idea of the shape. It's got about 245rwkw at 100km/h(140rwkw stock), and 299.4 at 145km/h (203rwkw stock, dyno done in third gear obviously), then it starts losing power (I put my hand up once power started decreasing, no point reving it any further). Tuner put some more timing in the top end but suspect the stock cat is making it hard work in the top end. Can anyone confirm how to convert km/h to rpm? I did a calc based on the car doing 203km/h @ 6000 rpm in third (that's what the mk1 manual does in 4th, same 1:1 ratio as auto in third per wheels magazine), is that speed/rpm not useful on a dyno? Anyway according to my calcs; 100/203 * 6000 = 2956rpm @ 100km/h (245rwkw) 145/203 * 6000 = 4286rpm @ 145km/h (299rwkw) either the tires were slipping on the dyno, my adjustment factor is wrong or the car produces a sh*t load of power low down.

Technically I'm not a member, but thought I'd post here anyway (can I do that?). Yesterday I had a set of headsex's injector's fitted and the car and tuned in Melbourne. The aim was to get 300rwkw's. I'm over the moon with the result but at the same time slightly disapointed. The mods are as follows: wogcooler headsex's injectors (mototrons apparently, ie deka copies but whatever) F6 intake .75mm gapped stock spark plugs BMC filter Walbro GSS341 fuel pump I still have a totally stock exhaust (the car's a ba auto sedan btw) first the car pulled 203rwkw's with stock tune, injectors, pump. Then we had trouble with the injector scaling due to the injectors being slightly different (the car had 15.8 to 1 afr in the mid range, never below 14.7 which worried me) however the car never pinged which gave me a bit of confidence, but I wasn't happy with the afr's and gave 236rwkw. Turns out the pump wasn't good enough (I modified the relief valve) but it maxed out at 270rwkw with lean afrs. The pump's done 70km's and had a dirty filter that wouldn't have helped it. So next came the new pump. It was 4pm and I needed to be at the boat by 6:30 so I wasn't expecting to achive my target. With the pump and adjusting the injector sclaing, the results were as follows with afr's around .83 lambada (satisfactory, especially since it isn't pinging at 1.1 lambada on crapy Tassie fuels lol). 261rwkw 8psi 283rwkw 10psi 299.5rwkw 14psi so close, but no cigar. I figure the exhaust would let alot more power out (even just a cat would help) with less boost but I decided against changing the exhaust to a)keep it legal, b)costs down and c)show some mercy to the bits that need to send it to the wheels. Now for the excuses. The car pulled 299.5rwkw's without the fans on the intercooler, and backed it up immediately after with 299.4rwkw (that cooler must be working well, certainly at this power anyway). The next excuse is that the dyno had just been repaired and was reading a little low. Anyway, the bottom line is I got 50% more power with these mods and I'm stoked. Total all up cost including fitting injectors, tuning, transcooler and whatever was under $2500. This is the first car I've spent money on making it faster, but the minute you step on the throttle I can certainly tell and feel where it went. The first time the tuner took me for a spin with the "small" tune, I felt myself being pushed back int the seat like I had never imagined (seriously). I can only imagine what 400 or 500 rwkw's must be like, I thought 100kws at the wheels made a big difference, 300 must be unreal.