Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

FPV's gunning for the senator, its going to release a new performance luxury model with the release of the BF Mark II.

As far as I know its based on the Fairmont , It will have either the F6 4L or the Boss V8. I haven't seen any pics yet but its going to have a subtle body kit ie no rear spoiler

From what i heard they will be out around the end of OCT.

all BF's will get a face change to look more agressive except the XR's which won't change at all. The Fairmont Ghia looks the best out of all the models (even better than the XR's now)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/129379-2-new-fpv-models-coming/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

FPV's gunning for the senator, its going to release a new performance luxury model with the release of the BF Mark II.

As far as I know its based on the Fairmont , It will have either the F6 4L or the Boss V8. I haven't seen any pics yet but its going to have a subtle body kit ie no rear spoiler

From what i heard they will be out around the end of OCT.

all BF's will get a face change to look more agressive except the XR's which won't change at all. The Fairmont Ghia looks the best out of all the models (even better than the XR's now)

pics or death by laser

taser_side_mirror_small.JPG

I work for a Large dealership that has a FORD, CHRYSLER / DODGE / JEEP and HYUNDAI franchise. I was asked today if i had told anyone as ford want to keep it a secret until the launch but oh well its only a job and i'm not that attached to it :D. I'll take some pics on my phone tommorow and put them up here :O

FPV F6 Typhoon

0-100 km/h: 5.35 seconds

Standing 400 m: 13.95 seconds @ 170 km/h

Top Speed: 250 km/h (limited)

That funny cause Ford released the above performance stats-umm dont see a 12 sec anywhere there

The fact that standard they handle like a boat and are no quicker round Qld raceway than a well driven WRX makes me go sleepy nite nite

Edited by gtr660hp
FPV F6 Typhoon

0-100 km/h: 5.35 seconds

Standing 400 m: 13.95 seconds @ 170 km/h

Top Speed: 250 km/h (limited)

That funny cause Ford released the above performance stats-umm dont see a 12 sec anywhere there

The fact that standard they handle like a boat and are no quicker round Qld raceway than a well driven WRX makes me go sleepy nite nite

12.9 with nothing changed but an air filter mate.

12.9 with nothing changed but an air filter mate.

ill 2nd that, a black phoon ute and sedan was at WSID last week when i was there, they said late 12s stock!

Now modded with intake kits, cooler and computer, low 12s easy! those autos hammer too!

Another ford to tempt me ;)

Guys I can assure you that the FPV Typhoon will do a 12.9 stock.

Myself, I did 7 passes and all were in the 13.2-4 and I weigh 140kg. Another guy that was there with the same car except he had 19"wheels (mine are 18") ran 3 x 12.9's.

The times have been backed up the following week.

Edited by 4DoorGTR

gotta love the one-eyed skyline fans who wont admit the F6 is a good car hehehe.. same goes for every brand i guess..

back on topic, there have been numerous high 12's and low 13sec runs, and i believe there was even a 12.73 run, stock with filter, stock factory dunlops and auto... you must admit that is impressive

wow its a second slower than my 180sx(and 2sec slower than my GTR)

how bout lap times in a stock one....yawn again

:dry:

Is your GTR or 180SX Stock ?

If not, there is NO comparison.

A Worked XR6Turbo ran a 9.98...your GTR...yawn....your 180sx....yawn again :P

Does the auto give a better launch? My mates Typhoon definately isn't 12 sec material. My 34 goes better and would be 13.4 at best.

I do not know many people who can tell 1/2 a seconds difference by seat of the pants driving. The Auto makes a huge difference in launching, as manuals just seem to spin the rears or clutch.

The Typhoon is deceptivly quick as the 6 speed auto pulls harder than a 14yo boy.

We are not saying that a Typhoon is better than a Skyline, just informing you of the facts about their real world performance.

Edited by 4DoorGTR

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
    • If they can dyno them, get them dyno'd, make sure they're not leaking, and if they look okay on the dyno and are performing relatively well, put them in the car.   If they're leaking oil etc, and you feel so inclined, open them up yourself and see what you can do to fix it. The main thing you're trying to do is replace the parts that perish, like seals. You're not attempting to change the valving. You might even be able to find somewhere that has the Tein parts/rebuild kit if you dig hard.
×
×
  • Create New...