FG X, The Last EVER Falcon - Picture & Discussion Thread

[335POWER]

Originally Posted by SensationFG8

297 is the gtf not the XR8. Not sure XR8 can claim a gtf achievement given they are running a different tune.

Xr8 should still be good for 280 though with no limiter

Wonder why they didn't use the normal 255 limit?

Different tune but obviously same engine. So all us who like to modify and tune will quite easily crack 300 with the limiter off

[LoudPipes]

Originally Posted by FPV8U

The GTF was limited by its Aero rather than its power, if the FGX is a more slippery design, and without the big GT Wing on the boot it could well be faster than the GT-F for top speed.

You're right, Aero is the key.

All the vehicles that can achieve high speeds have flat and smoothed out under carriages.

Even the entry level Euro performances cars (BMW, Merc etc.) have flat panels underneath to reduce drag and improve high speed stability.

Does the GT F and FGX have this?

[arronm]

You need power to push through the air


Even the old BA can crack 307kph

http://www.airpowersystems.com/falcon/avalon/307kph.htm

[jimt3te50]

Fgx has the underbody panels from the FG Ecoboost- the only model missing out is xr8.

[rst2000]

Originally Posted by FGX310

GT-F also had both speed and rev limiter removed.

and tailshaft upgrade..

[mchaggis]

Originally Posted by jimt3te50

Fgx has the underbody panels from the FG Ecoboost- the only model missing out is xr8.

There are 4 underbody panels on the FGX.

1. Under the nose, similar to FG but appears to be deeper.
2. Under the drivers seating position, and stretching back to under the driver side passenger.
3. Under the front passengers seating position, not as long as the drivers side panel.
4. Under the drivers side rear passenger, small panel there.

The panels appear to cover the hollows in the floor pan, and they could be candidates for fitment to FG's.

There appears nothing about them that would disqualify the XR8 from receiving at least some of the panels, exhaust run not withstanding.

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Latest Wheels mag says the FGX XR8 is limited to 230kmh?Pretty sure the ED Sprint went faster than that.

Can confirm this from the owners manual.

XR6 T and XR8 - 230kmh
All other models and engines - 200kmh

[arronm]

Smooth for increased fuel economy.

[commodorenutt]

Originally Posted by mchaggis

The panels appear to cover the hollows in the floor pan, and they could be candidates for fitment to FG's.

I wonder if another benefit would be a reduction in road noise as well?

[XR Martin]

Im not sure about how anyone could do 300kmh in an FGX, Bowe struggled to keep the GTF on the road at 280+ so I hazard a guess that most of us wouldnt have a chance.

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Im not sure about how anyone could do 300kmh in an FGX, Bowe struggled to keep the GTF on the road at 280+ so I hazard a guess that most of us wouldnt have a chance.

So- it seems that the aero package is not that well sorted for high speed.

I drove an AMG C63 on a pretty steep left hand curve up a hill at 250kph+, and "assuming for argument sake" the road I drove on had the characteristics equivalent to 2 lanes on a highway style roadway ( which I am not saying that it was) and was nicely smooth, I felt pinched to keep it in the left of "2 lanes", but felt comfortable using the racing line through the "2 lanes". Felt solid and planted.

But- I suppose the AMG C63 with the power pack is limited to 270kph odd and is designed to be used at that speed on the autobahns, whereas the XR8 has been designed for 120kph.

But if the XR8 is speed limited to 230 kph, that's like a blast of 12-14 seconds odd and then ANCHOR......

Ah well, 3 years warranty and then the fun begins with intercooler, pulleys and flashtune.....and then find a private road/raceway.......

[XR Martin]

I dont think its aero related, more that the shocks just arnt designed for that kind of speed. Plus the road they used wasnt exactly autobahn smooth.

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

I dont think its aero related, more that the shocks just arnt designed for that kind of speed. Plus the road they used wasnt exactly autobahn smooth.

Yes- when I drove that C63 the road was a smooth as butta, and no wind.

When I lived in the Northern Territory the roads were straight and appeared even, but there were undulations up and down which I felt at 180kph in a TE Cortina as a bit of a roller coaster ride, let alone 290 kph!!!!. John Bowe also had to deal with increasing wind gusts, which can get a handful up there.

Driving that Cortina TE at 190+ kph racing an M3 leaving Katherine to Darwin (speeds were unrestricted back then), was more of a handful and more hairy by far on a straight undulating road with minor curves than that blast I had in the C63.....just shows that so much is in the vehicle dynamics and not the driver.

My big regret after 3 years in the Northern Territory was never having the balls to hold the Cortina TE slug at 160 kph through the Hayes Creek kink on runs between Darwin and Katherine, always backed off....despite every time thinking I am gonna do it this time....actually probably explains why I am still here posting this crap.

May have to take the FG X XR8 up there to the speed unrestricted section one day......

[buggerlugs]

http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/2...-icon/?cs=2600
Nice write up..............

[mr smith]

I've hit 235 in my FG 2 XR T in the NT heading from Alice, with 1500 rpm left. I was happy it was limited because over 210 she started moving around a fair bit. 170 - 180 was the sweet spot. Car had 6K on the clock and was stock. I.m keen to see how the FGX goes against it. I have a XRT ute on order.

[FGX-302]

Had my 09 FG F6 at 258 on digital speedo limited at 250 few hundred rpm to go in 5th cog.. All I can say is it had more, slot into 6th back on boost at 240 and straight back up to the limiter.

This was on a back road n had no issues with the speed, don't get me wrong your holding on and maximum concentration/awareness is needed.

IMO a speed run is ok in a good environment but sustained cruising over 200 would need an excellent road which we have a lack of in the north of this great country and those speeds will see your car crushed now days!

130/140 cruise control was just meant to be for that car, plenty of that would see u walking pretty quick though.

[ford man xf]

So many pretty colours, hard to pick a fav

[arronm]

Once the tailshaft issue is sorted top speed is only limited by the horsepower.

200mph isnt out of the question.

If a BA with 330rwkw can go 190mph. How fast can one go with 400+

[SensationFG8]

Not really, I agree horsepower is important, but so is slipperiness. If you have a brick with 400+ kW obviously it'll be slower than a dart with 400+ kW.

There is a balance to be found between power, downforce and slipperiness to get top speeds.

According to the stats on FGX it does reduce the drag coefficient from 0.312cd to 0.291cd. Practically I dont know what this means for top speed, I'm not studious enough in these matters to know for sure. What I do know is that given the same power the FGX will have a slightly higher top speed than an FG.

The question now is weather the extra power on the GTF makes up for the reduced drag on the FGX. Only a real world test will tell us for sure I say lets get them all out to the NT for high speed runs!!!

Edit: Of course the FGX weighs more too, so how does that offset the extra slippery? There are so many variables when you push it right to the limits.

[Sioso]

Originally Posted by arronm

Once the tailshaft issue is sorted top speed is only limited by the horsepower.

200mph isnt out of the question.

If a BA with 330rwkw can go 190mph. How fast can one go with 400+

Aerodynamics come into play at a certain speed.
The force of the air pushing against the front of the car combined with masses of horsepower can actually make a car break traction and start wheel spinning at those speeds.
Pulling a burnout at 200-250mph isn't safe.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

No intercoolers because they make too much power from the factory. During development they did everything they could to strangle the motor to keep it at the realistic low 300s sticker. Miami was designed for an intercooler but it made around 430kw all day, none of this overboost BS. Throttles in the 335 are restricted to 60% and 80% in the GTF. Imagine the public outcry in 2010 when the motor was released if Ford jumped from 315kw to 430kw and close to 400rwkw. Another handy outcome for Ford is the cost savings involved by not having the need for intercooling to be at their desired point with miami.

It wasn't simply that they make too much power. It's not as if you add an intercooler, suddenly it's making a million kw. They could have made the same power with less boost and more consistently. While FPV only claimed a maximum of 6psi, the PCM reads more than half a bar and then it tapers back, not the other way around. They could have taken even more boost out of it. The lack of a cooler was a cost thing, regardless of what they say. They could have easily set them up to make less power. Look at the GS for example, while the GT is a consistent low-mid 12 second car, the GS struggles to dip below 13. It's all in the tune. Once the Miami gets hot enough, the PCM pulls boost out and richens the mixture. You can feel the power drop off after a few hits.

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by SensationFG8

Not really, I agree horsepower is important, but so is slipperiness. If you have a brick with 400+ kW obviously it'll be slower than a dart with 400+ kW.

There is a balance to be found between power, downforce and slipperiness to get top speeds.

According to the stats on FGX it does reduce the drag coefficient from 0.312cd to 0.291cd. Practically I dont know what this means for top speed, I'm not studious enough in these matters to know for sure. What I do know is that given the same power the FGX will have a slightly higher top speed than an FG.

The question now is weather the extra power on the GTF makes up for the reduced drag on the FGX. Only a real world test will tell us for sure I say lets get them all out to the NT for high speed runs!!!

Edit: Of course the FGX weighs more too, so how does that offset the extra slippery? There are so many variables when you push it right to the limits.

Thanks for the stats on coefficients...

I do not think weight has that much effect on top end speed as does aerodynamics and power.

Also, I suspect the coefficients you mentioned at some 300kph may have more effect that the minor power differences between GTF and FGX Xr8, especially as the later runs were in the heat of day and the car was probably pulling back on the "overboost" in any event.

But yes- would be interesting to shoot out top speed of a GTF and an FG X XR8 in early morning in the top end....

[FGX-302]

IMO the Falcon chassis/drivetrain ect is at it's limits with the 351 tune from a manufacturers point of view.. Sure plenty are kicking around with much more power and that's fine I'm all for it, though 400+rwkws 6spd manual in the wrong hands could be pretty lethal from factory. Given how the GT-F performed on the track I couldn't see that Ford Aus would have ever upped the power any further without major upgrades.

From track reviews only, it sounds like HSV could have given the GTS that sort of power and got away with it. Oh wait on paper they did and it was smiles all round in the red camp, until the GT-F touched it up on the dyno and HSV's power fraud was exposed haha!

[elfinke]

Originally Posted by lucas2

Here you go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPeYEG76ii8

This was great, thanks for sharing!

[arronm]

307>297 . Most tuned cars will top 300. 400+ will top 320 or 200mph.

Stock car dont have enough HP to do it.

[SensationFG8]

We can suspect all we want about the coefficient, but what does 0.2 mean? Does it mean more than an extra chunk of power? Does it mean 15km extra terminal speed or does it mean 2km when all other variables are equal?

You can't rule mass out by the way, it's one of the principle things in physics, extra mass requires extra force to accelerate it. At least some of the 335 on an fgx goes to moving the extra mass.

[GTP534]

The reduction in the drag coefficient from FG to FGX is about 6.7%. If frontal area and velocity are the same for FGX and FG then drag would be 6.7% less.

Theoretically, the difference between GT (335kW) and GT-F (351kW) is 4.8% but, as we know, the real world outputs of both engines would probably see a greater difference in GT-F's favour.

I suspect also that for the XR8 the drag coefficient might be closer to FG than FGX.

[FGX-302]

I'm sure an unlimited XR8 would go close enough for most to 300. At the end of the day if u want to do 300kph in an FGX it's your balls that decide your budget. Could be done for under $2500 from factory IMO..

Does anyone know how many km's that GT-F had on it? Most GT-F's atm seem to have next to no km's and if that ones the same id be havin another crack on a cold morning after she's done 20-25k km's.

That 300 run with a revised rev limiter surely woulda helped loosen it up of it wasn't lol up the Miami!! What I would have done to hear that GT-F come past best part of 300kph past the rev limiter!!

[SensationFG8]

Prodrive floated 375 versus 425 with charts to back it up at the day we attended. That's a 12% differential. May not be true but they had no real reason to mislead.

I'd still rather a real world test, just measuring percentages of two variables is not a great method ;) and it'd make for awesome viewing.

[GTP534]

To be honest, and just my thoughts on the matter, I find the top speed run in the NT to be irrelevant and meaningless.

This is because the car had a strengthened propeller shaft and had the limiter disabled. John Bowe also wasn't comfortable at the speeds reached.

I don't mean any disrespect to GT-F owners as my thoughts would be the same no matter what car was used if it differed from factory.