Difference between S/C 8 and Turbo Barra

[arronm]

That's a shame. But we can tune a car for great power. But Ford have to warrant it so their hands are tied.

[Professor Farnsworth]

The story I heard was it was going to be cooled but they ran out of money full-stop. I doubt the "too much torque" thing has any merit as plenty of people are running I/C Miamis without them turning into an overstressed tailshaft.

[ratter]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

The story I heard was it was going to be cooled but they ran out of money full-stop. I doubt the "too much torque" thing has any merit as plenty of people are running I/C Miamis without them turning into an overstressed tailshaft.

One of my customers is an engineer for ford, he told me about the torque issues a when it was occurring.
The thing is, most enthusiasts will push beyond the power levels that the factory does, and most will not see any apparent issues, nor care in most cases that a rattle has occurred etc, but Ford had to put a warranty on the cars and ensure it held up to the factory power level.

[shaness8]

297 in the GTF pretty good in my opinion considering it was stinking hot with cool temps 300 wouldn’t be a problem.

[arronm]

To put it in perspective, at racewars I went 240 kph with F6 400rwkw. To go that speed a supercharged xr8 needed 466rwkw.

[JC]

Originally Posted by arronm

To put it in perspective, at racewars I went 240 kph with F6 400rwkw. To go that speed a supercharged xr8 needed 466rwkw.

What was required for you to hit 400rwkw, and what was required for the XR8 to hit 466? I'd guess at similar mods probably.....

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by arronm

To put it in perspective, at racewars I went 240 kph with F6 400rwkw. To go that speed a supercharged xr8 needed 466rwkw.

For pure acceleration in a given distance, one can see- given the fat and non linear "hump" torque and power band of a blown barra, that to achieve similar acceleration a Miami with a linear power and torque curve- will need to achieve significantly higher peak power -because the linear power curve needs to be dragged up.

But pure top speed- no limit on distance to achieve- it is all about power. If you have a Miami with 400 rwkw and a Barra with 380 rwkw on a top speed run the Miami would do it-assuming unlimited roadway, assuming each car has optimum gearing for their respective peak power, and assuming that the cars have identical wind resistance drag at play.

[arronm]

https://www.fordforums.com.au/vbport...php?t=11467472

That car runs on E85. I was on 98.

[arronm]

That GTF may have had a raised rev limit. Watch the Video at 1.39. Revs post 7k. Remember it's a 8k tacho.

Just because a car has a theoretical speed doesn't mean it can reach it.

I reckon 297 was all a GTF has. That is 187mph.

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by arronm

That GTF may have had a raised rev limit. Watch the Video at 1.39. Revs post 7k. Remember it's a 8k tacho.

Just because a car has a theoretical speed doesn't mean it can reach it.

I reckon 297 was all a GTF has. That is 187mph.

The GT-F was stock.

All they did was remove the speed limiter and install a c.f. tail shaft for safety reasons..

Pointless exercise if it was tuned. Standard rev limit of 6250.

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

The GT-F was stock.

All they did was remove the speed limiter and install a c.f. tail shaft for safety reasons..

Pointless exercise if it was tuned. Standard rev limit of 6250.

If you watch the footage closely, you'll see the car is sitting around 6200rpm at 284kph so it's possible they raised the rev limiter to 6500rpm...

[Bent8]

Having driven both turbo 6 and blown V8, my preference is for the latter but... we should remember that both models were engineered to be 'competitive' in their own ways, otherwise they wouldn't sell.

That being said, and if I'm not mistaken, the GT always outsold the F6

[roddy1960]

Originally Posted by Bent8

Having driven both turbo 6 and blown V8, my preference is for the latter but... we should remember that both models were engineered to be 'competitive' in their own ways, otherwise they wouldn't sell.

That being said, and if I'm not mistaken, the GT always outsold the F6

Yes , agree , that's the beauty of it . Two outstanding affordable yet quite different performers but under the Blue Oval badge. Those choosing one or the other choose them for what suits them best.

Then of course prior to local manufacturing finishing in late 2016, for those choosing the Mustang over one of the last Falcons, they could be ordered in two distinct engine choices.

Same thing really , V8 or Turbo albeit a four cylinder one and a n/a V8 .

[arronm]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

The GT-F was stock.

All they did was remove the speed limiter and install a c.f. tail shaft for safety reasons..

Pointless exercise if it was tuned. Standard rev limit of 6250.

That's what they said..

But I think it had a few tweeks

Kph/1000rpm in 5th is 46.1. You do the maths.....

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by arronm

Kph/1000rpm in 5th is 46.1. You do the maths.....

275/30/19 tyres, 3.73 ratio, 0.71 5th gear @ 297kph equals 6443rpm

[FG50T]

Originally Posted by Bent8

275/30/19 tyres, 3.73 ratio, 0.71 5th gear @ 297kph equals 6443rpm

Street tyre's can grow 2" at 180mph (more if on cross plys/slicks) so add that to the rolling diameter at that speed.

[shaness8]

A mildly tuned Barra makes max torque between 3500-3800 and max Kw at 5200 its all over by 6k.

On the road between 3-4k the Barra is a weapon with its massive torque not much can match it .

The area where the 8 shines is its ability to rev higher in the 6-7k, both engines can make the same KW but at different rpm, anything under 5k the Barra will destroy the s/c 8.

[Geeseman]

Originally Posted by shaness8

The area where the 8 shines is its ability to rev higher in the 6-7k, both engines can make the same KW but at different rpm, anything under 5k the Barra will destroy the s/c 8.

An 8 running 400+ rwkw makes killer torque from below 2000 rpm. Much more streetable than a 400rwkw 6. Sure the 6 is fun but it’s also stupid at the same time. The sprint 6 is two seconds slower around circuits as tested by motor mag and for good reason the 8 is just a much better engine.

[sixman]

Originally Posted by Geeseman

An 8 running 400+ rwkw makes killer torque from below 2000 rpm. Much more streetable than a 400rwkw 6. Sure the 6 is fun but it’s also stupid at the same time. The sprint 6 is two seconds slower around circuits as tested by motor mag and for good reason the 8 is just a much better engine.

The same motor mag that rates the vf2 SSV a much better car than the figx xr8?

[arronm]

Originally Posted by sixman

The same motor mag that rates the vf2 SSV a much better car than the figx xr8?

Let's not bring the VF SSVR into it. Cause once you drive one you can see why they are so quick at the track.

[Geeseman]

Originally Posted by sixman

The same motor mag that rates the vf2 SSV a much better car than the figx xr8?

It pretty much is. It’s also faster.

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by Geeseman

It pretty much is. It’s also faster.

Dejavu

[ratter]

It’s all dependent on how boost is delivered

[chrisandsharon]

12.13/116mph stock F6 - Geezuz shaness8 not bad. That’s bog stock yeah?
Just read your signature. Brilliant
Apologies for the quick detour.

[shaness8]

Originally Posted by chrisandsharon

12.13/116mph stock F6 - Geezuz shaness8 not bad. That’s bog stock yeah?
Just read your signature. Brilliant
Apologies for the quick detour.

Stock with K&N filter in it

[ratter]

Again from my customer the engineer, he said early ford testing showed the sprint 8 had better turn in and mid corner speed compared to the sprint turbo, but the sprint turbo had more exit speed

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by ratter

Again from my customer the engineer, he said early ford testing showed the sprint 8 had better turn in and mid corner speed compared to the sprint turbo, but the sprint turbo had more exit speed

Yes- but as Geesman said, the blown 8 was faster than the blown 6 on a track as tested. The 8 got higher speeds on the longer straights, on some tighter exists the 6 punched out harder but ran out of legs on the straights.

Was an interesting test, with graphs showing the speeds the 8 and 6 reached at different parts of track, but end result was the 8 was faster round the track, and not by a gnats ball hair either....

[ratter]

Originally Posted by asagaai

Yes- but as Geesman said, the blown 8 was faster than the blown 6 on a track as tested. The 8 got higher speeds on the longer straights, on some tighter exists the 6 punched out harder but ran out of legs on the straights.

Was an interesting test, with graphs showing the speeds the 8 and 6 reached at different parts of track, but end result was the 8 was faster round the track, and not by a gnats ball hair either....

Have you thought that quicker corners times can help make a car quicker around a track?
It helps just like faster top speeds can help

[arronm]

What I have read is the extra weight of the V8 upsets the handling in the corners when compared to the 6 .

I feel the linear power curve of the V8 would make it easier to drive at the track once the power is turned up.

[arronm]

Greater corner speed has a greater influence on lap times than speeds on the straight

A few ks extra corner speed will reduce lap times greater than a extra 10-15kph on the straights.