Which AU?

[XR_MICK]

G'day all might be a dumb question but ill ask it anyway... Im looking at getting a AU XR6 just dont know which one go for. I know some have got the 175Kw engine but which one? series 1,2,3, VCT only?
Thanks Mick

[DFB FGXR6]

There were two versions of the XR6 for AU , AUII and AUIII.

The HP had the non-VCT 164kw engine a live rear end

The VCT had the 172kw VCT engine and IRS rear end.

Visually the only ways to tell them apart are the alloys (II/III had 17'') and the exhust. VCT's had a larger oval crome tip (thats if it hasnt been replaced with a tacky aftermarket one).

[Peuty]

I can't provide a comaprison, as I have only ever driven one with the HP engine, but I would imagine the VCT would be the one to own.

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

Visually the only ways to tell them apart are the alloys (II/III had 17'')

The Series 1 also had 17" wheels too.

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

Visually the only ways to tell them apart are the alloys (II/III had 17'') and the exhust. VCT's had a larger oval crome tip (thats if it hasnt been replaced with a tacky aftermarket one).

Incorrect alot of HP's had 17' wheels my old AUII HP had SI 17's from factory

[V8falcons]

You know you want to buy my AUII VCT ghia it has the best of both worlds!!!!


http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI....MESE:IT&ih=015

[XR_MICK]

Which is the better of the two in your opinion?

[DFB FGXR6]

The VCT engine feels like it wants to rev a bit more freely than the Non-VCT , though not anywhere near as revvy as the BA DOHC. The IRS wil also aid handling.

That said the XR6 VCT with IRS is heavier and isnt really any quicker the the Base car. Both are available with auto/man , unlike holden who made their high performance option (supercharged V6) auto only.

If you can find one , a AUII/AUIII VCT is the go for me.I like them better than the BA.

[InfernoSR]

I'd go the VCT if you can get one at a good deal...

[BIGJB]

I love my VCT but in saying that wait till
you try to get a bigger cam.....

I have driven both on many occasions and I have to say VCT.

[XR_MICK]

Im going this weekend to check a AUII VCT out, looks good in the pics so we'll have to see.

[Mechan1k]

Moved to correct section

[Sox]

I have driven both VCT and non VCT several times.
Their is not a lot of difference in performance, but the non VCT is clearly a little quicker.
Handling wise, the VCT (IRS) is superior on very bumpy roads, however on smooth surfaces the difference is not noticeable.
The IRS is also more comfortable on those bumpy roads, but again, the same on smooth roads.

If you're going to modify it, the non VCT is easier and has better scope.

Which one is better is difficult to answer, as they are very close and each has there strengths.

If I were buying, I'd be looking for a non VCT, but I'd probably buy either if the right one came along.

Edit - I would also be looking for series 2 or 3, as they have several significant advanatges over the series 1. Such as better brakes, quieter and more refined, and the interior/exterior styling is nicer IMO.

[ST]

Originally Posted by Sox

Their is not a lot of difference in performance, but the non VCT is clearly a little quicker.

Isn't it actually the other way around? The VCT even with the added weight is a few tenths quicker?

The VCT is the way to go, unopened modification there is no difference (if you are doing a lot to the internals of the engine, certainly the HP is way easier), much better suspension setup and a lot of the VCT's tend to have more options and the better factory bodykits.

[Sox]

Originally Posted by RTSW

Isn't it actually the other way around? The VCT even with the added weight is a few tenths quicker?

No, the HP is in some cases 1/2 second quicker over the 400m.
The tiny power increase is not enough to overcome the weight deficit.

The VCT is the way to go, unopened modification there is no difference (if you are doing a lot to the internals of the engine, certainly the HP is way easier), much better suspension setup and a lot of the VCT's tend to have more options and the better factory bodykits.

That's all just a matter of opinion.
I outlined the suspension and performance differences in my first post, both have there strengths, but there is no clear winner here.
As far as options and body kits, they are the same.

[Bucknaked]

VCT is thirstier

[just me]

yeah my series 2 hp had 17's even the spare is. personally i like the hp but i might be biased but each to their own definately get series 2 or 3 though

[DJM83]

It was just that buyers were too cheap to tick the 17' wheel option. The 16' wheels on AU XR's look horrible IMHO

[Mont5.0]

yep 16" too small for AU.

[DFB FGXR6]

Sorry. Ment to say that 17''s were optional on AUII XR6 HP's. Have to agree that the 16''s look stupid on the XR6 , looked ok on the XLS though.

[DJM83]

Yeah its ok mate, IIRC 17's were an option on AUI aswell

[ST]

No i'm pretty sure i've clearly read multiple times the VCT is still slightly quicker. I've actually read stock 1/4 mile times for a lot of people and VCT's are consistently quicker in the majority of results.

The VCT was made by Ford/Tickford as the premium XR6. The independent rear suspension is FAR superior, i've driven in both with and without and it is much more refined and far better.

As for what I said with bodykit and options, i'm saying there are a lot more VCT's out there with the kit and options already on. I've seen countless HP's with no sideskirts, 16 inch wheels and base-spec interior.

[Sox]

Originally Posted by RTSW

No i'm pretty sure i've clearly read multiple times the VCT is still slightly quicker. I've actually read stock 1/4 mile times for a lot of people and VCT's are consistently quicker in the majority of results.

We'll agree to disagree.

The VCT was made by Ford/Tickford as the premium XR6.

And? Ford have done this many times, made a 'premium' vehicle slower than the the supposed lesser ones. All XR6's and XR8's from 92 to 96. BA to current XR6T's and XR8's/GT's.
In all of the above, the supposed lesser vehicle is quicker and better handling than the 'premium' models.

The independent rear suspension is FAR superior, i've driven in both with and without and it is much more refined and far better.

Again, we'll agree to disagree.

As for what I said with bodykit and options, i'm saying there are a lot more VCT's out there with the kit and options already on. I've seen countless HP's with no sideskirts, 16 inch wheels and base-spec interior.

This is just a matter of opinion, as some, including myself, prefer a car without all the plastic rubbish.
The interiors are mostly the same from what I've seen.

[ST]

Originally Posted by Sox

We'll agree to disagree.



And? Ford have done this many times, made a 'premium' vehicle slower than the the supposed lesser ones. All XR6's and XR8's from 92 to 96. BA to current XR6T's and XR8's/GT's.
In all of the above, the supposed lesser vehicle is quicker and better handling than the 'premium' models.

Yes but the HP is certainly not better handling and it isn't quicker either. The more revvable and aggressive engine sound of the vct is a big plus too.

Originally Posted by Sox

Again, we'll agree to disagree.
This is just a matter of opinion, as some, including myself, prefer a car without all the plastic rubbish.
The interiors are mostly the same from what I've seen.

So then why not take off the front bar? That's plastic. You don't think it looks strange with a low front bar and the rest of the car missing a few inches all the way around?

I can see how you like the HP, all the au's especially the XR's were great. But the VCT is a step up.

[Sox]

Originally Posted by RTSW

Yes but the HP is certainly not better handling and it isn't quicker either. The more revvable and aggressive engine sound of the vct is a big plus too.

You just don't get it.
I have magazine test data right here in front of me -
XR6 HP - 0-100kph = 7.88 / 0-400m = 15.33 / weight = 1530kg / power = 164kw.
XR6 VCT - 0-100kph = 8.07 / 0-400m = 15.59 / weight = 1650kg / power = 172kw.

Now it doesn't matter how many times you say it, you're still wrong. The HP was and will always be the quicker car, this was proved by hard numbers, and was always commented on by the road testers.

Do the numbers, 8kw is no where near enough to overcome the 120kg weight penalty from the IRS. The IRS was good, but it was very heavy.

Lastly, I have driven both vehicles on several occasions, and the seat of the pants feel is very very similar, however the HP is ever slightly more responsive.

As far as handling is concerned, I already acknowledged that the VCT is superior on poor road surfaces. However on very smooth roads, or a race track, the HP is actually slightly quicker again, due to it's lower weight.

This is all fact, not opinion.

So then why not take off the front bar? That's plastic. You don't think it looks strange with a low front bar and the rest of the car missing a few inches all the way around?

Not at all, I think they look very very classy without the body kit, however that's just my opinion so it isn't relevant and not worth arguing about.
I have never liked body kits on any vehicle as they look cheap and tacky and just add extra unnecessary weight.

I can see how you like the HP, all the au's especially the XR's were great. But the VCT is a step up.

In some areas yes, but they both have there strengths.
Now can we leave it at that, I'm not interested in arguing about this any further.

[ST]

By replying you continue the argument, therefore it doesn't stop there.

I'll use quotes that you can actually read instead of "magazine in front of me" statistics. Such as this site, which gives a great and well researched review on all the XR range. Quoted from the site: "Despite it's weight penalty (which reduces the VCT six's straight line advantage down to 0.3 seconds on the 1/4 mile) it made for a far more supple and stable ride - less likely to skip sideways on bumps mid corner. " The reason it is slightly quicker is in part due to the IRS, which gives much better traction when you put your foot down. It can go either way, by a few tenths of a second. Either way they are both faster on different days, drivers etc...

On the note of the suspension: "Combined with the Falcon's exceptional steering feel, it made for a far more accurate and better handling package than anything either Holden or HSV could throw at it. Having driven both the HP and VCT versions, I'm a sworn convert to the Falcon IRS way of doing things - with less body roll, far better traction (even in a straight line) and a softer ride than the live axil'd XR6 HP!"

The IRS is superior on and off track, i've never heard anyone apart from you say otherwise. I can't see a base spec looking falcon with an XR front on 16's being more attractive than a properly kitted one on 18's, each to their own I guess. But you won't find many agreeing with you there, i'm doubting the thread maker would.

[The Monty]

Id say the HP as you can mod it a lot easier, and the live rear isnt THAT bad. Deffinately spend the extra and get a series 2 or 3.

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by The Monty

Id say the HP as you can mod it a lot easier, and the live rear isnt THAT bad. Deffinately spend the extra and get a series 2 or 3.

Have to agree , the live rear end is that bad , had a AUIII Fairmont with one and it seemed ok. That said IRS would have been nice. Go for AUII/III , they have the better interior (AU XR6's had manual windows and awful cloth trim) and more agressive styling , although I'm starting to like the series one's styling for some reason

[ST]

If that were true the new VE HSV 317's would be quicker than the FG F6 Typhoon with their higher power to weight ratio. It doesn't come down to power to weight, that's 4 cylinder talk. You should know that much more comes into the equation as to how quick a car goes. None of those actually say "the HP is faster" so there is no clear answer there either.

The quote you got from true blue was from "Daryl Coon" as it says on your link, if you actually looked at the page I gave you'd clearly see "Info By Doug Bevan". One person would not say one thing is superior then the next day say the other is.

There is no clear cut quicker car in the 2, it simply comes down to the VCT having better suspension and a more revvy engine.

[Sox]

Originally Posted by RTSW

If that were true the new VE HSV 317's would be quicker than the FG F6 Typhoon with their higher power to weight ratio.

Nope. Now you're just shifting the goal posts.
Firstly, turbo engines react very differently than N/A engines, producing flat torque curves from the moment they build boost.
Secondly, we're discussing the AU XR6 HP and AU XR6 VCT, which share very very similar engines with one small difference.

It doesn't come down to power to weight, that's 4 cylinder talk.

Eh? What rubbish are you on about? Power to weight ratio applies to EVERYTHING.

You should know that much more comes into the equation as to how quick a car goes.

Sure, things such as gearing, traction etc. However, the 2 vehicles in question share the same ummmm EVERYTHING, except for weight and power. So power to weight ratio is the only thing which comes into play here.

None of those actually say "the HP is faster" so there is no clear answer there either.

What part of -
"Realistically, the extra 8 kW of the VCT just isn't enough to make up for the extra 70kg of the independent rear suspension especially out on the race track."
- Don't you understand?

The quote you got from true blue was from "Daryl Coon" as it says on your link, if you actually looked at the page I gave you'd clearly see "Info By Doug Bevan". One person would not say one thing is superior then the next day say the other is.

Learn to read, I said his name was mentioned on the site you provided, I did not say he was the writer. Which is why I said 'Who would you believe, a journo or a guy who races?'.

There is no clear cut quicker car in the 2, it simply comes down to the VCT having better suspension and a more revvy engine.

Yes, it does have 'better' suspension, unfortunately the extra weight of this better suspension is something which the revvier engine simply can't compensate for.
Therefore the VCT is slightly slower in acceleration, just like I said in my very first post.

[ST]

Originally Posted by Sox

Nope. Now you're just shifting the goal posts.
Firstly, turbo engines react very differently than N/A engines, producing flat torque curves from the moment they build boost.
Secondly, we're discussing the AU XR6 HP and AU XR6 VCT, which share very very similar engines with one small difference.

I'm talking about the IRS providing better traction, especially in a straight line. To improve the acceleration and speed so it makes up for the extra weight, not just the VCT (which is no 'small difference' in it's own right). That makes much more than a small difference.

Originally Posted by Sox

Eh? What rubbish are you on about? Power to weight ratio applies to EVERYTHING.

Sure, things such as gearing, traction etc. However, the 2 vehicles in question share the same ummmm EVERYTHING, except for weight and power. So power to weight ratio is the only thing which comes into play here.

You are misinterpreting, you were saying power to weight figures like they were the be all to end all reason for how fast a car is. Whereas we both know there is much more in the equation.

Originally Posted by Sox

What part of -
"Realistically, the extra 8 kW of the VCT just isn't enough to make up for the extra 70kg of the independent rear suspension especially out on the race track."

Don't you understand?

I don't understand the part where it is his dads car that he isn't allowed to drive on the track (and hasn't). That kind of takes the credibility away.

Originally Posted by Sox

-
Learn to read, I said his name was mentioned on the site you provided, I did not say he was the writer.

Well that doesn't make a point of any form then.

Originally Posted by Sox

Yes, it does have 'better' suspension, unfortunately the extra weight of this better suspension is something which the revvier engine simply can't compensate for.
Therefore the VCT is slightly slower in acceleration, just like I said in my very first post.

If there is any difference it is near minimal. The revvier engine and the way the suspension gets better traction does compensate for the added weight.