new cam results i6 - Page 2

Walkinshaw · 29-12-2005, 01:54 PM

Wagons are NOT as heavy as you would believe. My Sedan is heavier than a Gli Wagon of the same model

stiddy · 29-12-2005, 01:57 PM

LOL at that avatar..

jonbays · 29-12-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walkinshaw

Wagons are NOT as heavy as you would believe. My Sedan is heavier than a Gli Wagon of the same model

Don't believe all the weights Ford quote as they bs something shocking about the weight of the new AU on release then added weight back in the AUII/III with more sound deadening and fiberglass body kits bits.

Anyway basic facts wagons weigh 70kg more than sedans.

IRS sedans weigh 70KG more than live axle sedans

Auto's weigh 29KG more than manuals.

I can tell you for certain my AUII Fairmont wagon weighed in at 1650KG on the WSID scrutineering weighbridge without me and with 1/4 tank of fuel. next car was a mates AUI XR6 manual 1530Kg.

That weight difference is like 15rwkw difference in power.

Ford reckon an AU Auto and air Futura wagon weighs 1598kg versus the sedan 1525Kg. Fortes 10Kg lighter.

An XR6HP 1520 manual 1553 Auto. An XR6VCT 1615 manual 1644 Auto.

The EL GLi wagons were heavier than the AU wagons by about 40KG.

Casper · 29-12-2005, 05:41 PM

so if my AU VCT is 1644kg and your AU2 Fairmont wagon is 1650kg with all the extra fruit and sound deadening... then its logical to assume that my sedan is actually heavier than an AU1 Forte wagon?

jonbays · 29-12-2005, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

so if my AU VCT is 1644kg and your AU2 Fairmont wagon is 1650kg with all the extra fruit and sound deadening... then its logical to assume that my sedan is actually heavier than an AU1 Forte wagon?

Casper in the AU the wagon or the IRS added 70KG so our cars would be so close in weight it would matter more who ate more for lunch.

Weighbridge might say otherwise but I think not.

Casper · 29-12-2005, 05:56 PM

Thought that might be the case. Cant wait to run a 14 in this heavy "wagonesque" car then

jonbays · 29-12-2005, 05:56 PM

The EL fairmonts were 1580 odd KG and the AU 1531KG but i have a sneaking suspision that they were pretty much the same weight again by the time they got to AUII/III when the ABS cruise laminated firewall etc came in.

Ford are such BS artists about the vehicle weights its hard to tell.

Walkinshaw · 29-12-2005, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonbays

The EL GLi wagons were heavier than the AU wagons by about 40KG.

and my Sedan is 7kg heavier than an EL GLi wagon.....

jonbays · 29-12-2005, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walkinshaw

and my Sedan is 7kg heavier than an EL GLi wagon.....

Well not in Fords specifications which reckons the EL wagon was 1624KG the EL GLi sedan 1568 and fairmont 1580KG and fairmont Ghia 1602kg.

But like I said ford were full of it in quoting dimensions.

Even so i do not see how a short wheelbase car is going to be heavier than the lwb variant without a heavy IRS setup or something very different

xr8ute · 29-12-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonbays

I can tell you for certain my AUII Fairmont wagon weighed in at 1650KG on the WSID scrutineering weighbridge without me and with 1/4 tank of fuel. next car was a mates AUI XR6 manual 1530Kg

Thats fairly heavy. My ute with spare and jack removed, and with 40L in the tank weighed in at 1670Kg (~1760 with me in it)...

Racecraft · 29-12-2005, 06:56 PM

I have the AU II wagons weighing 36 kilos less than the i6 Ghia.

1606 vs the wagon @ 1580 kerb weight

mik · 29-12-2005, 11:16 PM

i took my vct au2 for a weigh at finemores in laverton and the rego label was on the money 1580 kg

INJECTED_250 · 30-12-2005, 12:44 AM

weight doesnt affect anything j/k :>

**Stav** · 30-12-2005, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

This is the same stall that started at 2500, then 2800, then 3100, then 3300, now 3400??
Stav, got to make up your mind. Mine started at 3000 and has remained a 3000 for the whole time.

Was supposed to be 2500 rpm ...ended up being definately 3300-3400 rpm stall.As said before if you can get traction go for whatever stall you want.Just remember that you lose some of the drivability with this size torque converter.From 2500 to 3300 stall speed ..I wonder if it can be used?Especially when 2200 rpm takeoffs had me spinning at the line before takeoff.

stockstandard · 30-12-2005, 02:06 AM

your ~3300rpm stall spins on the line at 2200?

Walkinshaw · 30-12-2005, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by useless

Was supposed to be 2500 rpm ...ended up being definately 3300-3400 rpm stall.As said before if you can get traction go for whatever stall you want.Just remember that you lose some of the drivability with this size torque converter.From 2500 to 3300 stall speed ..I wonder if it can be used?Especially when 2200 rpm takeoffs had me spinning at the line before takeoff.

Its not a 3300 converter then. Its a horendiously loose 2200rpm converter.......quality

**Stav** · 30-12-2005, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walkinshaw

Its not a 3300 converter then. Its a horendiously loose 2200rpm converter.......quality

No you are both wrong this time. The shop which made it believed that it would not reach 3300 rpm stall speed because they didnt anticipate the power of my car.This same converter in a big v8 ford could stall to 4000 rpm.In a standard car it would probably be 2200 .

If under brakes I hold it to 2200 rpm it does not spin .However ,at the line your revving at 2200 with an auto then stomping it to try and get off the line.It flashes to 3300 rpm ,locks up and then you are off.However the car spins at 3300 rpm because the torque at 3300 in an auto is multiplied by 2 times which is the multiplication ratio.Therefore at those rpms an auto owner has twice the torque of a manual equipped box,provided the same power levels.

I can hold it to 2800 rpm where the car starts to fishtail under brakes.Then flashes to 3300 rpm and spins stupid. The true stall speed cannot be achieved under the brakes.This is partial lockup.

A takeoff from 2000 rpm still makes for a good takeoff with less wheelspin from stalling at 2500 rpm.

I might take a little video to illustrate the point and show people how it works. Unfortunately though ..I feel that even though the car goes well off the mark that the midrange feels less punch as my car was making good torque in part of the rev range which the bigger stallie has removed.

So I have 2 options...a little more power ,or a slightly smaller stall converter.This will actually make my car faster.2 dynos have shown no decrease in power with this unit ,however while quicker off the line doesnt make me feel the pull of the standard converter in mid to top end range due to this.

Also walkinshaw ,what times have you pulled in 31 degrees and 56 degree track temperatures? A 15.19 is a good time for 1million kilometre ex traxi moter dont you think ?

Walkinshaw · 30-12-2005, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by useless

Also walkinshaw ,what times have you pulled in 31 degrees and 56 degree track temperatures? A 15.19 is a good time for 1million kilometre ex traxi moter dont you think ?

See avatar...

Walkinshaw · 30-12-2005, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by useless

No you are both wrong this time. The shop which made it believed that it would not reach 3300 rpm stall speed because they didnt anticipate the power of my car.This same converter in a big v8 ford could stall to 4000 rpm.In a standard car it would probably be 2200

I think you underestimate the power required to push a stall converter higher. There is no way that a converter designed to stall to 2200rpm with 110rwkw will stall to 3300 with 140. Under that theory a "big ford v8 ford" with 350rwkw would push the stall to 8500rpm.

I know somone who has a Stall in his V8 Windsor, which has arround 130rwkw and he can push the stall (under takeoff flash) to 2800rpm. The EXACT SAME CONVERTER behind a worked windsor + 7lb boost would push the stall to just over 3000rpm.

Walkinshaw · 30-12-2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by useless

.However the car spins at 3300 rpm because the torque at 3300 in an auto is multiplied by 2 times which is the multiplication ratio.Therefore at those rpms an auto owner has twice the torque of a manual equipped box,provided the same power levels.

What stator vein mods were made to achieve this torque multiplication factor?

xr8ute · 30-12-2005, 03:02 PM

Stav, did they modify the torque multiplication at all? I don't know what ratio Ford use in our Falcon converters, but OEM converters typically a ratio somewhere around 2:1 - 2.5:1.

It really is only designed to improve drivability when driving "under" the flash or brake stall speed of the converter. As soon as the converter is locked up (which is when the car will start moving at the track), the torque multiplication immediately drops to 1:1...

Walkinshaw, the peak horsepower of the engine will really have no affect on the stall speed of the converter, unless peak horsepower is at the same rpm as the stall speed(?) which would of course be a ridiculous scenario ;)

Some reference material here, http://www.tciauto.com/tech_info/tor..._explained.htm

This thread is sooooo off topic..lol

**Stav** · 30-12-2005, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walkinshaw

I think you underestimate the power required to push a stall converter higher. There is no way that a converter designed to stall to 2200rpm with 110rwkw will stall to 3300 with 140. Under that theory a "big ford v8 ford" with 350rwkw would push the stall to 8500rpm.

I know somone who has a Stall in his V8 Windsor, which has arround 130rwkw and he can push the stall (under takeoff flash) to 2800rpm. The EXACT SAME CONVERTER behind a worked windsor + 7lb boost would push the stall to just over 3000rpm.

Maybe thats why my car only pulled a 15.19 ...the stall converter isnt right..Maybe its slipier than I thought. ...

SOZ Nik.....hand this post back to you.....

xr8ute · 30-12-2005, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by useless

Maybe thats why my car only pulled a 15.19 ...the stall converter isnt right..Maybe its slipier than I thought. ...

Yep, thats certainly possible. If its less efficient, it will affect power to the wheels. It was still dynoing around 135-140rwkw though wasn't it..?

Don't underestimate the heat either, it was ridiculously hot on the track. Stav, there is a good thread at the moment on weather correction for timeslips on the V8Owners forums.

If my 14.291 @ 97.47 was in the same weather conditions as my previous PB (14.544 @ 95.02), it would have been a 14.0 @ 99mph....it was HOT!!!

I can't remember your exact timeslip Stav, but I took 15.2 @ 90mph, and in typical winter conditions, it would have been about 14.95 @ 92mph.

I dunno, it's all just speculation at the end of the day. But despite Walkinshaws avatar, i think still think you've got a pretty decent Wagon.

....it just needs more horsepower
....and you need to take it to the track more often ;)

Walkinshaw · 30-12-2005, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xr8ute

Walkinshaw, the peak horsepower of the engine will really have no affect on the stall speed of the converter, unless peak horsepower is at the same rpm as the stall speed(?) which would of course be a ridiculous scenario ;)

I know this fact. Stall speed is a combination of TC size, stator vein angle and engine torque. My comments regarding the blown vs NA windsor holds true. The blown windsor makes 250rwkw and the NA windsor makes 130rwkw, but i gaurentee the Blown windsor makes more than 2x the torque of the N/A windsor at 2500-3000rpm pushing the stall higher.

xr8ute · 30-12-2005, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walkinshaw

but i gaurentee the Blown windsor makes more than 2x the torque of the N/A windsor at 2500-3000rpm pushing the stall higher.

Yeah, you've got the right idea.

The above statement would definitely hold true for a mild Turbo Windsor or Kenne Belle Windsor, but not so much for a centrifugally supercharged Windsor like a Vortech or Powerdyne. They would hardly be making 2psi at that engine speed...

stockstandard · 30-12-2005, 08:16 PM

Considering that the dyno graph for the vortech STARTED at 140rwkw I think it is safe to say it had a fair bit more poke everywhere, it really doesnt matter if it was exactly 2x, or 1.434535X, or whatever.

Bottom line is if a mild 6 is pushing the stall up over 1000rpm you should be asking questions. Im sure stav will have it sorted out soon enough.

**Stav** · 30-12-2005, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xr8ute

I dunno, it's all just speculation at the end of the day. But despite Walkinshaws avatar, i think still think you've got a pretty decent Wagon.

....it just needs more horsepower
....and you need to take it to the track more often ;)

Walkinshaw's avatar doesnt bother me. the stall was shown on 2 different dynos to have not lost power so I am on the border of tossing it or getting another 10 to 20 rwkws.No limp home mode either.20 runs back to back with burnouts and no issues...i

**Stav** · 30-12-2005, 11:09 PM

lets go here...

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...507#post468507

jonbays · 02-01-2006, 03:52 PM

Where you going to take it now?

All locked up by Casper!!

Who was taking offence at what i wonder?

Casper · 02-01-2006, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonbays

Where you going to take it now?

All locked up by Casper!!

Who was taking offence at what i wonder?

Sorry, there were a couple of replies that were getting out of line and, as much as I have my own personal opinions and will pull Stav up on incorrect facts (as I have no doubt I and anyone else would be), when things get personal or unnecessarily heated I have to don the mod hat and play bad guy.

If Stav wants to start a new thread he's more than welcome.. and it will be kept on topic. Generally aufalcon.com threads are allowed a massive level of tlerance for off topic posts as there is rarely any issues (and usually some good laughs) however this is still a moderated forum and attacks wont be tolerated.