Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

As of today, Journalists will be wiriting up the new FG line up..

I got these figures from drive.com.au for the xr6t

0-100km/h: 5.1 seconds

0-400m: 13.4 seconds

Top speed after 400m: 172km/h

From the article:

For the record, the air-conditioning was on. There were no stunts, no tricks, we just squeezed the accelerator. It did it like it was brushing its teeth.

This not only makes the latest Falcon XR6 Turbo the fastest Falcon to date, it also shoots it to the top of the leader board in Australian performance cars. It’s faster than both the Holden V8s and its own big brother, the Falcon XR8 (which stopped the clocks at a comparatively slow 6.3 seconds).

Since the FPV F6 is expected to come with a 310kw figure, expect the 0-100 acceleration time be in 4 seconds and quarter mile in on mid to high 12 seconds

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleD...;vf=12&pg=2

Edited by Barbarian
  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is it just me or does every photo of the new Falcon look like it has a really skinny trackwidth?

GT-R times will be much quicker than the Falcon.

I've seen a couple fg xr's on the road and they appear some what smaller than BA/BF's.. also from what I have read, tracks for both front and rear were widened.

Ford Aus promises this car to be the best handling Aussie built car to date.

hell yeah

bring on the fpv f6

it was always said that the BA/BF were the best looking fords ever built - i think they have surpassed that with the FG

very very stylish....

(i dont think there is a common exterior panel between the BF and FG)

i wonder :thumbsup: if it will have shitty ill fitting plastic bits in it and other things that fall off or break :laugh:

parents have a territory AWD ghia and nothings fallen off yet (and its 2 yrs old...)

Not bad. You'd think theyd release photos that aren't in a shit colour...

Car companies always take the most eye-catching colour since it photographs the best.

From Nissan's perspective, look at the horrible Sunset LeMans orange (and the new solar orange) that most of the 350Zs in the promo posters etc are shown in. Really vibrant when printed, and it comes off the background well, but in the metal its really tacky.

The old BA/BF performance Fords had their promo / press cars in that sickly green, too. Great to shoot, bad to look at.

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



  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...