|
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
19-03-2005, 09:05 AM | #1 | ||
likes falcon's
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,091
|
was looking at wheels other day and noticed the falcon has a tiny edge on 0-100times and was impressed! i think was 12.2 vs 12.8 this is new news to me as i didnt actually know wat the times where, they ended up being quite similar only really big difference was fuel economy.
but wat was more exciting was the concept of a turbo territory!!!!!!!
__________________
www.carhubsales.com.au |
||
19-03-2005, 12:12 PM | #2 | ||
LPG > You
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 4,277
|
Um... were you looking at XF 3.3 Falcons? I don't know of any new ones that are that slow to 100km/h........
|
||
19-03-2005, 12:49 PM | #3 | ||
Donating Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,940
|
is 12.2 and 12.8 the fuel economy figure or the 0-100 time???
|
||
19-03-2005, 01:15 PM | #4 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,078
|
lol niko. That didn't make much sence..
|
||
19-03-2005, 01:38 PM | #5 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 2,913
|
lol, glad im not the only 1 that thought that was slow....
isnt a more reasonable time about half that.....6-7 seconds? |
||
19-03-2005, 01:44 PM | #6 | ||
windsor user
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Geelong
Posts: 13,123
|
from my understanding wheels do 0 - 100 - 0 times
so that 12 sec time os accelerating from 0 to 100 then braking from 100 - 0 |
||
19-03-2005, 01:54 PM | #7 | |||
LPG > You
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 4,277
|
Quote:
|
|||
19-03-2005, 01:56 PM | #8 | ||
windsor user
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Geelong
Posts: 13,123
|
oohk then, i was sure they did, and the time that was stated would be what a falc would do,
|
||
19-03-2005, 02:11 PM | #9 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 2,913
|
yeah never heard of 0-100-0 either....just 0-100
12.2 that'd sound closer to 12.2L/100km.....but even then, when i drive my dads BA fairmont i always average 10L/100km on the freeway, which is pretty damn good i think, and takes the "worse fuel economy" factor out of the BA write-ups that i've read....thats pretty much all they fault it on.....its weight contributing to lower fuel econonmy, and that the weight is only there because of added safety features. |
||
21-03-2005, 02:53 PM | #10 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,303
|
maybe that's 0-100mph?
|
||
21-03-2005, 05:41 PM | #11 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 691
|
Perhaps it was towing a boat?
__________________
93 ED Futura, I6, KKK500r Turbo, Dev 5 head, custom Surecam, TKO500, Lokka. 250rwkw@4000rpm, 9psi, and lots of boost taper. Comming soon: T04Z, plenum, TrueTrac. |
||
22-03-2005, 02:34 PM | #12 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Croydon, VIC
Posts: 501
|
Quote:
But we're missing the point; the falcon was 0.6 of something or other better or worse than the commo! woohoo/booooo! -Stu |
|||
22-03-2005, 02:51 PM | #13 | |||
Back to Le Frenchy
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Back home.....
Posts: 13,346
|
with the times i'd say towing a commo! :
__________________
Quote:
07 Renault Sport Megane F1 Team R26 #1397
|
|||
21-03-2005, 07:48 PM | #14 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: South East Melbourne
Posts: 6,156
|
Or flat shifting.
|
||
22-03-2005, 03:21 PM | #15 | ||
hibernating
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,135
|
lol yeah i think they'd be closer to the 7 second mark
|
||
22-03-2005, 05:45 PM | #16 | ||
windsor user
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Geelong
Posts: 13,123
|
wheels drivers mustnt be able to drive if thats the best they can get out of a falc or commo....
|
||
22-03-2005, 05:52 PM | #17 | ||
Bear with a sore head
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 3,703
|
Motor got a 7.2 or 7.3 for a stock manual BA XT. I think COmmodores do it in high 7's. Not sure about the new alloytec though. Maybe the SV6 does it in under 7 seconds?
|
||
22-03-2005, 05:56 PM | #18 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 2,913
|
grechie was saying that in the latest edition...either wheels or motor, that the mkII futura beat the alloytec 190KW holden down the 1/4....
he said the holden was in front for the first 6 seconds....so it would probably do the 0-100m quicker |
||
22-03-2005, 06:09 PM | #19 | ||
windsor user
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Geelong
Posts: 13,123
|
well, the VZ 6 being quicker than the BA 6 doesnt supprise me in the slightest, having 5kw more power and less weight....
|
||
22-03-2005, 06:15 PM | #20 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 2,913
|
thats why the heavier less powered BA beating it on the 1/4 surprised me a lot!
|
||
22-03-2005, 06:17 PM | #21 | ||
Bear with a sore head
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 3,703
|
BA has heaps more torque though. Alloytec V6 you have to rev the shyte out of to get it to move. And it sounds like a sewing machine on steroids while you're doing it.
|
||
22-03-2005, 09:58 PM | #22 | |||
meow
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Where the Pirates are.
Posts: 2,744
|
Quote:
|
|||
22-03-2005, 09:28 PM | #23 | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I'd say 12.2 and 12.8 is meant to be fuel consumption per 100km rather than acceleration.
|
||
22-03-2005, 10:11 PM | #24 | ||
Get in the ring!!!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Mornington Peninsula
Posts: 888
|
I have the latest Wheels here,
VZ Acclaim 175kw Vs BAII Falcon Futura Fuel consumption: 13.9 L/100km Vs 15.9 L/100km 0-60: 4.0 sec Vs 4.1 0-80: 5.8 Vs 5.9 0-100: 8.5 Vs 8.2 0-120: 11.4 Vs 10.9 0-140: 15.1 Vs 14.3 0-400m: 16.0 Vs 15.9 80-120 5.5 Vs 5.1 So it appears that the BAII has the wood on the 175/4 speed combo, after driving my mates SV6 190/5 speed combo I would expect it to be much more even though.
__________________
FG MKII XR6T - Tuned by Pit Lane |
||
22-03-2005, 11:03 PM | #25 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 2,913
|
so the ford takes it up the top end.....
Grechie told me that the ford still won on the 1/4 against the 190kw holden, but was behind for the first 6-7 seconds |
||
23-03-2005, 08:03 AM | #26 | ||
Formally ED I6
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Vic
Posts: 367
|
[QUOTE=MickyB]I have the latest Wheels here,
Fuel consumption: 13.9 L/100km Vs 15.9 L/100km QUOTE] Is that fuel consumption correct on the BAII seems very high (I thought BA 6 cyl used around 13L/100 on average), anyone got a BA have similar fuel consumption?
__________________
Daily driver 98' AU 349ci Fairmont Ghia on LPG --------------------------- Other 93' ED 5spd 4.0L NA Fairmont 13.75 @ 101mph |
||
23-03-2005, 11:59 AM | #27 | |||
Get in the ring!!!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Mornington Peninsula
Posts: 888
|
[QUOTE=ED I6]
Quote:
__________________
FG MKII XR6T - Tuned by Pit Lane |
|||
23-03-2005, 12:07 PM | #28 | ||
Viper FG XR6 Turbo
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 858
|
[QUOTE=MickyB]I have the latest Wheels here,
VZ Acclaim 175kw Vs BAII Falcon Futura Fuel consumption: 13.9 L/100km Vs 15.9 L/100km 0-60: 4.0 sec Vs 4.1 0-80: 5.8 Vs 5.9 0-100: 8.5 Vs 8.2 0-120: 11.4 Vs 10.9 0-140: 15.1 Vs 14.3 0-400m: 16.0 Vs 15.9 80-120 5.5 Vs 5.1 So it appears that the BAII has the wood on the 175/4 speed combo, after driving my mates SV6 190/5 speed combo I would expect it to be much more even though.[/QUOTE=MickyB] thats a poor 0-400M time, XT's have gotten low 15s standard before. of course the ford has more fuel consumption, heaps more tourque + more weight + bigger( + much smoother) motor = more fuel consumption |
||
22-03-2005, 11:10 PM | #29 | ||
windsor user
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Geelong
Posts: 13,123
|
oh yeah, theres a 175kw/4 auto version...... i forgot about that one lol
|
||
23-03-2005, 12:23 PM | #30 | ||
Get in the ring!!!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Mornington Peninsula
Posts: 888
|
Wheels did comment that the BAII they tested didn't feel as 'lively' as a BA tested in previous issues, and it didn't record as fast times either.
__________________
FG MKII XR6T - Tuned by Pit Lane |
||