Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey

Why does the XR6 Turbo have such a small intercooler?

is it because Ford doesnt want people to buy the cheaper XR6 Turbo, and have it with more power than the more expensive XR8?

or does it have to do more with the internals/drivetrain/gearbox not being able to handle the power?

thanks

Tharaka

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/40863-xr6-turbo-question/
Share on other sites

in a way yes. those cars come out the factory running low boost(5psi??) and were slightly detuned so the xr8 would still b the 'godzilla' of the xr range, lower boost means no need for big cooler unless the customer wants it, if thats the case its up to the customer to replace with bigger cooler. most xr6 owners wouldnt want to ruin their warranty by boosting it or modding it and/or have little desire to turn it into a 13(or 12) second beast. would still prefer a r34 or s15 over it. on a side note, the internals and drivetrain are not weak, i havent heard good things about the gerabox though

They are fairly crazy on rolling starts, pulled nxt to a turbo ute presumably with atleast chiptorque etc floored it and he was just pulling slowly away.

I wasnt driving at the time tho so couldnt judge properly, Either way a 4L turbo cant be underestimated.. except for the 1600-1700 weight

probably due to the bigger capacity engine and lower boost there is less requirement for a bigger cooler than on a smaller capacity engine. I assume the turbo is bigger and therefore running the lower boost it doesn't build as much temperature back into the engine. Also the compression ratio is probably fairly detonation friendly for aussie conditions. Ford engines are generally pretty strong -- even the old ones. Most of the 80's falcons you can strap a turbo kit onto without massive dramas, whereas most of the commodores need more internal work.

...and probably most importantly to them: smaller = cheaper :(

As I understand it the XR6T is marginal on cooling as it is, so blocking the radiator with a big FMIC is a problem. This would explain why people are working on Water-Air intercoolers from them...

My friend is working on the FPV F6 Typhoon testing so I probably should ask him if that is right. I reckon they should make a Z-tune style bonnet from an XR8 bonnet :thumbsup:

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

    • 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...