XR8 Sprint Power figures?

[Dan XR8Sprint]

Quoted Power is 345kW @ 5,750RPM but it's also stated that max torque of 575Nm is maintained until 6,250RPM which equates to 376kW

Just Sayin...

[Johnnydoof]

Would that be it or plus overboost.

[Dan XR8Sprint]

No 575Nm from 2,220 - 6,250 is standard figures not in overboost mode

[FalconXV]

Gets me thinkin- probably eclipses the GT-F. I'm sure Wheels will put it on a dyno to find out for sure. Best GT-F time was like 4.46-seconds (0-100), Pirellis could shave 2 tenths off (4.2), suspension might help it hook up better, plus I'm sure there's some calibration tricks. I wonder if it could be a flat 4-seconder or maybe 3.9x (doubtful but you never know).
I reckon the 6 will be in that range too.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by FalconXV

Gets me thinkin- probably eclipses the GT-F. I'm sure Wheels will put it on a dyno to find out for sure. Best GT-F time was like 4.46-seconds (0-100), Pirellis could shave 2 tenths off (4.2), suspension might help it hook up better, plus I'm sure there's some calibration tricks. I wonder if it could be a flat 4-seconder or maybe 3.9x (doubtful but you never know).
I reckon the 6 will be in that range too.

I've been saying this to anyone who would listen (no one did though!)!

I reckon the Sprints will be quicker than the GTF purely because of the rubber used alone! Dear God I hope to see the Sprints do what the GTF couldnt thanks to the bloody Dunlops!

Sprints should go down as the fastest Falcons ever!

OP, I wouldnt get my knickers in a knot over power figures of the sprint... they are only provided because they had to provide some numbers for the car.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Johnnydoof

Would that be it or plus overboost.

Looking at the brochure I certainly get the impression that it's meant to be a basic number without the overboost and I can't see that it can have both a 345 kW and a 376 kW max off overboost power figure.

Of course on overboost I'd expect it to go above 575 Nm at those revs.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by FalconXV

Gets me thinkin- probably eclipses the GT-F. I'm sure Wheels will put it on a dyno to find out for sure. Best GT-F time was like 4.46-seconds (0-100), Pirellis could shave 2 tenths off (4.2), suspension might help it hook up better, plus I'm sure there's some calibration tricks. I wonder if it could be a flat 4-seconder or maybe 3.9x (doubtful but you never know).
I reckon the 6 will be in that range too.

Even the Basic XR6 T is clearly capable of going under 4.5 to 100 km/h. I've had 4.56 and 4.59 out of my totally stock (untuned) FG XR6 T Auto, and that's at high altitude with quite a load on board, which helped grip but slowed the cars rolling acceleration.
With a lower stall (because of less grip) at WSID, I got a 4.62 sec time to 100 km/h, and if I cherry pick my best high altitude, high grip 0-20 km/h launch, and combine that with my WSID results, I get the following calculated 4.37 sec potential result.
(Sure I couldn't have done it at WSID with the available grip, but the data clearly shows that the power is there for a 4.3, and given that weather/load conditions weren't perfect, I'd say there is potential for a small improvement on 4.37).

My times were measured by the identical GPS based accurate timing equipment that Motor uses.

0-20 km/h................0.63 sec
0-40........................1.40
0-60........................2.17.................in 19.14 metres

0-80........................3.22
0-100 km/h..............4.37 seconds in 68.42 metres.

I'd certainly expect the Sprint to be faster, so I'm thinking it should have the power for a very low 4 and Motor Magazine have been getting some good results lately.

One final point.

I've had a few members question the credibility of my claims in the past, the last occasion was 4 days ago.
If in doubt please read the first bit of my post number 1880 in the "Ford confirms 310 kW XR6 is go" thread about 11 pages back (posted on 15/2/16 at 10:57 AM).

[Windsor220]

You know they will get a 0-100 in about 6 seconds and leave it at that

[6Sprint]

Originally Posted by 2242100

Even the Basic XR6 T is clearly capable of going under 4.5 to 100 km/h. I've had 4.56 and 4.59 out of my totally stock (untuned) FG XR6 T Auto, and that's at high altitude with quite a load on board, which helped grip but slowed the cars rolling acceleration.
With a lower stall (because of less grip) at WSID, I got a 4.62 sec time to 100 km/h, and if I cherry pick my best high altitude, high grip 0-20 km/h launch, and combine that with my WSID results, I get the following calculated 4.37 sec potential result.

(Sure I couldn't have done it at WSID with the available grip, but the data clearly shows that the power is there for a 4.3, and given that weather/load conditions weren't perfect, I'd say there is potential for a small improvement on 4.37).

My times were measured by the identical GPS based accurate timing equipment that Motor uses.

0-20 km/h................0.63 sec
0-40........................1.40
0-60........................2.17.................in 19.14 metres

0-80........................3.22
0-100 km/h..............4.37 seconds in 68.42 metres.

I'd certainly expect the Sprint to be faster, so I'm thinking it should have the power for a very low 4 and Motor Magazine have been getting some good results lately.

One final point.

I've had a few members question the credibility of my claims in the past, the last occasion was 4 days ago.
If in doubt please read the first bit of my post number 1880 in the "Ford confirms 310 kW XR6 is go" thread about 11 pages back (posted on 15/2/16 at 10:57 AM).

Now I'm not saying you are a liar but I simply don't understand how you can get those times out of a stock Xr6 Turbo. The Autos are actually quite easy to launch, simply stomp on gas at 2000rpm and you will brake slight traction initially and at top of 1st, but that's it. So the differences between peoples times are much less drastic compared to the F6 which is a ***** to launch.

I own a G6E Turbo and the best I have got out of mine is 4.9. My brother also owns a Xr6 Turbo and he too has 'only' managed 4.9.

[Carrion]

Originally Posted by 6Sprint

Now I'm not saying you are a liar but I simply don't understand how you can get those times out of a stock Xr6 Turbo.

I think your going to regret that post.

[duaned]

I can just image Sprint owners lining up at their local Ford dealership for replacement bushes, diffs, input shafts etc. This extra power will keep them busy!

[Blem]

Comes with a spare set of diff rubbers & a grommet & hole thru the spare wheel well.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by kypez

I've been saying this to anyone who would listen (no one did though!)!

I reckon the Sprints will be quicker than the GTF purely because of the rubber used alone! Dear God I hope to see the Sprints do what the GTF couldnt thanks to the bloody Dunlops!

Sprints should go down as the fastest Falcons ever!

OP, I wouldnt get my knickers in a knot over power figures of the sprint... they are only provided because they had to provide some numbers for the car.

You are NOT alone bud! It's like a Holden groupie festival around here sometimes.....I'm super keen how the Sprints go with their new sticky tyres, softer suspension and a touch more power!

[HO 3]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

You are NOT alone bud! It's like a Holden groupie festival around here sometimes.....I'm super keen how the Sprints go with their new sticky tyres, softer suspension and a touch more power!

Something tells me a lot of thought and testing has gone into the development of this last High Performance Falcon....................and this will come out in the wash

Cheers Mick

[2242100]

Originally Posted by 6Sprint

Now I'm not saying you are a liar but I simply don't understand how you can get those times out of a stock Xr6 Turbo. The Autos are actually quite easy to launch, simply stomp on gas at 2000rpm and you will brake slight traction initially and at top of 1st, but that's it. So the differences between peoples times are much less drastic compared to the F6 which is a ***** to launch.

I own a G6E Turbo and the best I have got out of mine is 4.9. My brother also owns a Xr6 Turbo and he too has 'only' managed 4.9.

I'm glad you raised that point because it gives me an opportunity to explain how I get the results and I hope you've read my earlier posts that should make it obvious that my car hasn't been modified.
So the next question is whether my GPS gear is accurate and that was proved at the track when the times from 60 feet to the end were all within a few hundredths of a second of the Dragstrip times.

So why is my car 4 tenths faster than yours?

The secret lies in having a few hundred more stall revs than you use, having enough weight behind the back axle to get a completely clean launch and launching on a good surface with good tyres.
At just over 2000 revs my car will typically strain harder on the brakes and the GPS data shows that launching cleanly at around 2200-2300 revs will typically cut at least 2 tenths off a clean launch with 200 or 300 less revs. So that's half or more of the gap explained, and if it can launch cleanly under those conditions it also won't lose traction at the top of 1st gear and change up early, which can cause a similar time loss, so that's about the total difference between our times explained.
Also I found out the other day with a second gear launch, that around 2500 revs (almost when the electronic nannies would probably cut in) can give an even better launch.
Adding weight to the back of the car plus a full fuel load can make a very big difference to traction, and I'd say that even if I put say 40 kg's in the boot, that should only slow the potential 0-100 and 400 metre times down by about a tenth, but it would likely in most situations give a very good launch advantage.

A couple of points to note though. If the brakes don't hold and the back wheels start to rotate that can kill the following run. Cooldown cruise needed, I think it might stop the overboost from working.
Also I wouldn't hold the stall for any longer than necessary and the Turbo's need 98 fuel for best performance, E10 93 to 95 RON fuel doesn't have a much higher (important) Motor Octane rating number than 91 fuel.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by 2242100

I'm glad you raised that point because it gives me an opportunity to explain how I get the results and I hope you've read my earlier posts that should make it obvious that my car hasn't been modified.
So the next question is whether my GPS gear is accurate and that was proved at the track when the times from 60 feet to the end were all within a few hundredths of a second of the Dragstrip times.

So why is my car 4 tenths faster than yours?

The secret lies in having a few hundred more stall revs than you use, having enough weight behind the back axle to get a completely clean launch and launching on a good surface with good tyres.
At just over 2000 revs my car will typically strain harder on the brakes and the GPS data shows that launching cleanly at around 2200-2300 revs will typically cut at least 2 tenths off a clean launch with 200 or 300 less revs. So that's half or more of the gap explained, and if it can launch cleanly under those conditions it also won't lose traction at the top of 1st gear and change up early, which can cause a similar time loss, so that's about the total difference between our times explained.
Also I found out the other day with a second gear launch, that around 2500 revs (almost when the electronic nannies would probably cut in) can give an even better launch.
Adding weight to the back of the car plus a full fuel load can make a very big difference to traction, and I'd say that even if I put say 40 kg's in the boot, that should only slow the potential 0-100 and 400 metre times down by about a tenth, but it would likely in most situations give a very good launch advantage.

A couple of points to note though. If the brakes don't hold and the back wheels start to rotate that can kill the following run. Cooldown cruise needed, I think it might stop the overboost from working.
Also I wouldn't hold the stall for any longer than necessary and the Turbo's need 98 fuel for best performance, E10 93 to 95 RON fuel doesn't have a much higher (important) Motor Octane rating number than 91 fuel.

I'll vouch for you bro! Every post of yours I've ever read is very well constructed and offers lots of technical info that you simply can't get easily! My eyes always light up a tad whenever I see your name I enjoy reading your posts because I know I'll learn something more often then not! And I certainly don't doubt your honesty or thoroughness! Keep up the good work bro!