BF Specs and Combined Threads

[bathurst77]

Originally Posted by Aussie Pete

How many models have we seen now where Ford/Tickford etc promised their new car would match or beat the Holden stuff in a straight line? Well, this started with AU2 and the 220kW XR8 but none actually have done it.

I think You may have something there, Pete.
I think The BF is a good model. but I think the two people who get the lest out of it wil be the "povo pack" xt buyers (Me) and the total top end performance GT/XR8 buyers.

XT misses out on 6 speed, ESP etc, but does get 8KW and better brakes suspension. XT got big boost at teh BA release and is a good car anyhow, for its market.

While the XR8 and GT are great Touring cars, i think FPV could release a limited edition screamer model, in terms of outright numbers FPV have never matched HSV.
FPVs are said to be better to drive, better packages etc, but HSV are always quicker. So there prob is room for an additional "High Output" model, purely designed to do the numbers, hi-po motor, stripped out sound deadening, thinner glass and weight saving trick. maybe a few weighty options deleted..cost more tho.

Lets see
GT-Sports.. GTS no thats a holden
GT-Racing.. GTR nissan
GT-Performance..GTP got that
GT-F8..forced 8?
GT-High Output.. GT-HO?
maybe they would not use GT tag, but a totally different name

[Bluehoon]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

I think You may have something there, Pete.
I think The BF is a good model. but I think the two people who get the lest out of it wil be the "povo pack" xt buyers (Me) and the total top end performance GT/XR8 buyers.

XT misses out on 6 speed, ESP etc, but does get 8KW and better brakes suspension. XT got big boost at teh BA release and is a good car anyhow, for its market.

While the XR8 and GT are great Touring cars, i think FPV could release a limited edition screamer model, in terms of outright numbers FPV have never matched HSV.
FPVs are said to be better to drive, better packages etc, but HSV are always quicker. So there prob is room for an additional "High Output" model, purely designed to do the numbers

Lets see
GT-Sports.. GTS no thats a holden
GT-Racing.. GTR nissan
GT-Performance..GTP got that
GT-High Output.. GT-HO?
maybe they would not use GT tag, but a totally different name

If you want High Output, up spec the I6T... :hihi:
Those things smash HSV, so i fail to see the arguement.
I know, i have raced many a HSV, and time and time again, killed them. out:

Off topic, hate to be the mod checking this thread :

[Citric GT]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

ILets see
GT-Sports.. GTS no thats a holden
GT-Racing.. GTR nissan
GT-Performance..GTP got that
GT-F8..forced 8?
GT-High Output.. GT-HO?
maybe they would not use GT tag, but a totally different name

A SPRINT package perhaps???

Originally Posted by Aussie Pete

Oh, on the V8 Boss power thing, to say the 260 is now 270++ would be great but that's a marketing mistake. So if true owners will now dyno their BA versus a BF and find maybe 10kW at the wheels. Kind of strange and not the idea we were suggesting. To make this change work you still have to market the change. So, make it the Boss 265 so at least a change is announced. Same for Boss 290 - make is Boss 295 but maybe run the power at 310.

Hi Pete, good to see you're still a passionate man.

I think Holden have understated power in the past and they prooved themselves on the dragstrip. I also agree that really to have any major impact initially they need to announce an increase in power.

Hopefully will see an improvement in performance with better and lighter driveline components (for the auto). So I say lets wait and see.

[HSE2]

Well said Pete.

What is happening today might not be tomorrow. While I believe we are premature in some assumptions regarding Boss engine upgrades this can be considered a prelude should Ford be stupid enough to undercut performance variants.


We are not in a market that sits still. Understating power might appease the politically correct but as AP correctly states it needs to be marketed. At the 4 year mark current FPV buyers are looking for a reason to continue that relationship. HSV owners might be considering cross shopping. They have a car that is being marketed as 305 and that is the bottom line. If Ford gets so far behind that figure they have to make a sizeable adjustment rather then a structured progression the current list of owners that are happy with the situation will have that smile turned upside down.

Performance at this point is irrelevant. Firstly you need to shift the cars off the showroom floor and as it stands the reason to buy the XR8 and support the guys bolting these things together isn't as strong as it should be. It’s ok to say six this and six that but consider this. That engine line at FPV is an expensive milestone. If the product coming off there is irrelevant to the market so to will the greater portion of that company. You don’t bring back a GT name to subject it to that kind of treatment. That action has to be an investment in the long term. The large car market is shrinking; the performance sector will head the same way accordingly. Holden V8 sales are supposedly 25% down and the volume FPV are shifting isn’t great.

We are commenting on a picture that is half drawn which is ok forums do that a lot. Its brain exercise. You have the parent company increasing torque on some models by as much as 30nm. We have an auto and final drive set up that will need good torque reliant engines. While at this point the engines are still being referred to as Boss 290 it doesn’t mean that come the full release they won’t change. As a market consideration it wouldn't be advantageous to show their hand to HSV.

The XR8 does seem to fly in the face of hope. While I understand this model does sit comfortable above the SS and is knocking at the door of the sensitive F6 demographic, Ford either believe their own hype or they don’t. In this release they claim to have listened and made changes driven by public demand. If you are going to increase torque of the Xr6T by such a margin, a car that is already seen as creditable, surely cars that aren’t shown in the same light would be a factor for public attention.

I can’t explain XR8. The media should have questioned it. The fact they didn’t seems odd. For now I am giving them the benefit of the doubt with the 290 claims.

BTW Why are we assuming the XR8 is picking up a twin system?

[Axle-F]

C'mon people! There is no mystery as to why they arent upgrading the XR8 - go for a drive and have a look at the pump prices....and its only going to climb!!

V8 sales are diminishing and this is a definate signal from Ford that they recognise this! Well done I say. Especially considering an XR6T will destroy the 8 down the track, stuff the low down down torque.

Moving off the V8 violin music, hats off the Ford for listening to customers and keeping the design of the BF close to BA. It was such a revolutionary design that they deserve to get another model (or two) out of it. And of course the delightful 6 speed auto is a fantastic acheivement for an Aussie sedan.

Interesting that they chose to implement what is esentially an FPV front spoiler, and pull the headlights back slightly per current car fashion. Looks like that kind of style will remain for a while longer.

Excellent job Ford, I salute thee!

[HSE2]

Most V8s today aren't using much more fuel then the Ford six and that is a fact.

In some cases in the real world they offer lesser consumption

[Axle-F]

Originally Posted by HSE2

Most V8s today aren't using much more fuel then the Ford six and that is a fact.

In some cases in the real world they offer lesser consumption

i find that difficult to beleive, got any supporting evidence? i'd be happy to beleive it but it goes against all logic...

[Citric GT]

Originally Posted by Axle-F

Especially considering an XR6T will destroy the 8 down the track, stuff the low down down torque.

I agree with your post, but low down torque is someting the BOSS does not have. The last V8 that had low down torque was the T3 stroked windsor.

[XplosiveR6]

Originally Posted by Citric XR6

I agree with your post, but low down torque is someting the BOSS does not have. The last V8 that had low down torque was the T3 stroked windsor.

the BOSS engine actually has alot of low end torque, its just limited buy the ecu to save the driveline, with the new stronger ZF, this may change

[HSE2]

Don’t need proof, its common sense. Displacement or a cylinder count isn't indicative of efficiency or a state of tune provided they are driven in the same manner as the six equivalents. It’s a modern day myth.

[XplosiveR6]

Originally Posted by HSE2

Don’t need proof, its common sense. Displacement or a cylinder count isn't indicative of efficiency or a state of tune provided they are driven in the same manner as the six equivalents. It’s a modern day myth.

in a perfect world this may be true, but this isnt perfect and we cant make engines 100% efficiant

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Aussie Pete

.......
I couldn't think of anything worse than living life behind a 4.0 with a pooftermatic but lots of people do.....

You still got that jacked up auto 4.0l EB wagon as your daily driver Pete?

[ED Classic]

The bigger & Heavier Fairmont Ghia with 6 Cyl and new 6 Auto uses .7 of a litre less per 100km than the lighter XT {Around 4.5 litres per tank} with the same engine but 4 speed Auto and that XT uses about the same amount less than BA XT. The V8s and Turbo 6's with the 6 Auto will be getting pretty effeciant. Expect a litre better for every 100km.

To give you an idea of BF's Effeciency. Fairmont Ghia uses 10.3 litres per 100km whilst Subarus 3lite 6 in liberty in Auto uses about 12 litres.

[HSE2]

Has nothing to do with a perfect world or making anything equal 100%. A V8 X5 can return better figures then the Falcon six. Have a look at the thread below and the figures being achieved. 11 to 12 for a six isn't very good. Most modern V8s don’t struggle to match that or as I said slightly worse. It would be a mistake to think of the BOSS as modern.

The 6 litre LS2 is better on fuel then the 5.7 it replaced despite the gearing change. V8s as a blanket statement on fuel economy is rubbish. If the MD car was in the car park I would post the read out for 2.5 tonne of V8 and compare it against the Xr6 that normally sits beside it. They are about the same.

My own XR8 gets over 700kms from a tank on the long run and over 500 around town. I have never owned a ford that is as economical as this one. A run on the dyno shows why this is so. Owners in the club have a similar experience comparing the turbo or NA sixes. There is no perfect world about it. The sentiment expressed above is exactly why Ford are in the position they are now. If you want to make a statement based on economy the question should read why is the falcon six so variable and why has it remained that way for such a long time?

If this were a perfect world Holden wouldn't be here.

[MITCHAY]

The way i see it is if you want the best fuel efficiency you dont buy a V8. The cost of fuel is something that accompanies a V8.

Sure there is a lot of good fuel economy numbers comming out of V8s these days then before but the bottom line is that no V8 is goin to be easy on the wallet.

There will be better V8s than others but no V8 is cheap to run. They have more of everythin thats consumable.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

The way i see it is if you want the best fuel efficiency you dont buy a V8. The cost of fuel is something that accompanies a V8.

Sure there is a lot of good fuel economy numbers comming out of V8s these days then before but the bottom line is that no V8 is goin to be easy on the wallet.

There will be better V8s than others but no V8 is cheap to run. They have more of everythin thats consumable.

Hmm Factory released dedicated LPG XR8 making similar/same power (with correct tuning)- I'd buy that.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by merlin

Hmm Factory released dedicated LPG XR8 making similar/same power (with correct tuning)- I'd buy that.

But is that an option now cause i really dont have a clue. I had no idea they had falcons running LPG until recently.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

But is that an option now cause i really dont have a clue. I had no idea they had falcons running LPG until recently.

AFAIK only on the XT's and the base model utes - 6's.

[HSE2]

You mean no full size family sedan is cheap to run. A V8 running at 2000 rpm will return better then a 6 running at 2200. That’s why as a blanket statement it is a myth an incorrect. If the displacement of the V8 is 4 litres and the six is 4 litres well you finish the sentence.........

A V8 is a cylinder configuration not displacement. A V configuration has different torque characteristics
The engine is only part of what is really going on. You have to get a mass moving and keep it moving. Efficiency comes from matching the force required in the best possible method within the characteristic of the torque being supplied from the engines available. In some case that allows the manufacturer to run a gear set that aids economy in a way a lesser engine can't.

Its relative and using an example to show why you are wrong.

Land Rover has released the new discovery. If you check out the engine options you will notice there is a V6 petrol option. Its says it is more economical on the window sticker, so using what is being said here that is the option many would purchase if you were in that market. Problem is the car is too heavy for that engine option and the 220kw V8 actually does the job easier and in a more efficient manner. The V6 has to work harder to shift that mass which is inefficient for that engine. The more starts or hill work you ask that car to do the bigger the gap becomes. There are examples of 4 V sixes that show the same thing. Economy isn't always about the engine.

But each to his own.

[MITCHAY]

Yeah i actually get what your saying and it does make sense now.

[kjau99]

I was hoping they would do more with the boot/number plate surrounds, something that would take your eyes away from the fact that it's like a fat VX Commodore.

[Donut King]

pity about the diff ratios with the 6 speed auto...
Barra 190 – Falcon: 2.73
Barra 230: 2.53
Barra 245T / Boss 260: 2.73
Barra 190 – Territory: 3.46

[Citric GT]

Originally Posted by Donut King

pity about the diff ratios with the 6 speed auto...
Barra 190 – Falcon: 2.73
Barra 230: 2.53
Barra 245T / Boss 260: 2.73
Barra 190 – Territory: 3.46

Thats the best info I've read on this whole topic.

[Perana]

Low 1st would make up for the tall diff ratio though...
BA XR
Overall Gearing (XR8 Autos)
1st
BAII 8.63:1
BF 11.38:1

2nd
BAII 5:1
BF 6.38:1

3rd
BAII 3.45:1
BF 4.14:1

4th
BAII 2.35:1
BF 3:11:1

5th BF 2.38:1
6th BF 1.88:1

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by Citric XR6

A SPRINT package perhaps???

Gee what have I been saying for a while... FPV F8 Sprint

[Axle-F]

Originally Posted by HSE2

You mean no full size family sedan is cheap to run. A V8 running at 2000 rpm will return better then a 6 running at 2200. That’s why as a blanket statement it is a myth an incorrect. If the displacement of the V8 is 4 litres and the six is 4 litres well you finish the sentence.........

A V8 is a cylinder configuration not displacement. A V configuration has different torque characteristics
The engine is only part of what is really going on. You have to get a mass moving and keep it moving. Efficiency comes from matching the force required in the best possible method within the characteristic of the torque being supplied from the engines available. In some case that allows the manufacturer to run a gear set that aids economy in a way a lesser engine can't.

Its relative and using an example to show why you are wrong.

Land Rover has released the new discovery. If you check out the engine options you will notice there is a V6 petrol option. Its says it is more economical on the window sticker, so using what is being said here that is the option many would purchase if you were in that market. Problem is the car is too heavy for that engine option and the 220kw V8 actually does the job easier and in a more efficient manner. The V6 has to work harder to shift that mass which is inefficient for that engine. The more starts or hill work you ask that car to do the bigger the gap becomes. There are examples of 4 V sixes that show the same thing. Economy isn't always about the engine.

But each to his own.

Ok, i get what you're saying too. But when u talk about running at higher revs costing more i thought that'd be a given. Also taking highway k's doesnt give an accurate reading either - city kms are the best indicator because that how the majority of people drive their cars. I will categorically say that in the city a 6 will get better mileage from the tank than an 8.

I understand perfectly your arguament about Land Rovers, but I'm not talking about 4WD's here (territories included) - just Falcons - for which Ford have chosen NOT to develop in the V8 category as demand is diminishing. Fact.

Another consideration which I haven't factored in is insurance costs for an XR6T vs XR8. Can anyone enlighten me on the figures cause that could easily tip the costs towards one engine over the other....

[HSE2]

It doesn't have to be Land Rovers. Let’s talk commodores at the other end of the scale if you like. Can you remember what happened when Holden introduced the 4 cylinder engine to that car?

Not that long ago it was thought that an automatic transmission would never be as efficient as a manual. No one is saying that today as the end is near.

AMG have just released their first NA V8 and are marketing a world first variable intake manifold that allows "perfect cylinder charging" for more efficiency and power.

I thought I read that Ford did develop the 5.4 3 valve? Did it not increase 10kws and 30 nm? Please correct me if I am wrong

[bathurst77]

Originally Posted by HSE2

Don’t need proof, its common sense. Displacement or a cylinder count isn't indicative of efficiency or a state of tune provided they are driven in the same manner as the six equivalents. It’s a modern day myth.

There wsa a thread on here while back people saying their fuel economy.

MOST I6 cars were about 10-12 litres 100Km.. MOST V8s were 16-18 overall.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Axle-F

Ok, i get what you're saying too. But when u talk about running at higher revs costing more i thought that'd be a given. Also taking highway k's doesnt give an accurate reading either - city kms are the best indicator because that how the majority of people drive their cars. I will categorically say that in the city a 6 will get better mileage from the tank than an 8.

I understand perfectly your arguament about Land Rovers, but I'm not talking about 4WD's here (territories included) - just Falcons - for which Ford have chosen NOT to develop in the V8 category as demand is diminishing. Fact.

Another consideration which I haven't factored in is insurance costs for an XR6T vs XR8. Can anyone enlighten me on the figures cause that could easily tip the costs towards one engine over the other....

I went in a friends VZ Acclaim, he showed me the trip computer and it said avg 13. something l/100km, and he drives normal driving habbits (or what i consider normal) That's no different to the trip computer in dad's 5.7 Caprice, so there is substance to the claim. Lower rpm in a bigger engine is better for economy because the engine is producing less kw, but the same or more torque, compared to a smaller engine revving harder. That's the story at least with Holdens, the new HFV6 aint that much better on fuel than the Gen 3. I think the Ford V8s use a little more fuel on average than the 6s, but dont have much experience with Ford V8s