|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
20-06-2010, 01:03 PM | #1 | ||
Chairman & Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 1975
Posts: 107,515
|
We've seena lot of discussion around the forum of late about weight reduction in our vehicles with the underlying view that weight reduction leads to improvements in performance and economy. Obviously.
I thought it was probably a good opportunity to have a look at the power and torque to weight ratios of various Falcon models throughout the history of Ford in Australia to see how they compared. Note: Weights used for the purpose of this table are either averages for the model range or based on a specific variant when they match and are known. First up weight to power, measured as kg/kW - in this instance the lower the figure the better and it's interesting to note how well the late models figure in this table although some of the hero models of yesteryear have made their way into the top half of the table, notably the XW GT in 5th and the 351 equipped XA/XB in 10th. Next, a look at the torque to weight, measured as kg/nM and like the earlier set the lower the figure, the better. This time, the table is led by the XW GT and the earlier models figure prominently at the upper end of the table. Cheers Russ
__________________
Observatio Facta Rotae
|
||
20-06-2010, 01:05 PM | #2 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Some say.......
Posts: 3,830
|
Great work once again Russ! Interesting to see the comparisons
Did you get bored while the server was being relocated??
__________________
Quote:
|
|||
20-06-2010, 01:37 PM | #3 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,334
|
I think the AU XR6 VCT was alot heavier than the HP (~1530kg) due to IRS. Somewhere closer to the XR8- up around 1600kg.
|
||
20-06-2010, 02:07 PM | #4 | ||
trying to get a leg over
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,690
|
Would be interesting to see the figures on the XY Phase 3. Unofficial claims said they were producing well over Fords claimed 226kw, but more like 285kw and who knows how much torque.
__________________
Cameron ------------------------------------------------------ |
||
20-06-2010, 02:18 PM | #5 | ||
EL SVO
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: sea
Posts: 229
|
Hard to believe the EL GT 1668kg dry
last time I was at the tip I got my EL Xr8 347 manual weighted 1655kg with the golf clubs an half tank a fuel prob round 50kilos on board car has spoilers heavy Fr17 simmons wheels etc as for torque to weight must be pretty good as it eats FPV GT 290's
__________________
Turbo terror...... |
||
20-06-2010, 03:11 PM | #6 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Melb north
Posts: 12,025
|
nice work SIR RUSS as always, imagine these older bangers with better diff ratio`s and 6 speed auto , even better the big banger late models with 70`s weight`s , .........ooooooeeeeeeeeyyyyy.
|
||
20-06-2010, 03:23 PM | #7 | ||
Peter Car
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: geelong
Posts: 23,145
|
You need to remember that a car making 300hp back in the 70's would not really have 300hp by todays measurements.
Back then engines were dynoed minus accessories, and I think measured in SAE and not DIN? |
||
20-06-2010, 03:30 PM | #8 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canberra Region
Posts: 9,052
|
I dont think the weights are right for the XD/XE V8s, that looks like the 6cyl figures?.
EBGT was 1650kg I thought too Anyway, nice work. Also add the ED XR8 Sprint which was 1580kg 192kw/405nm kw:kg = 8.23 nm:kg = 3.9
__________________
2016 FGX XR8 Sprint, 6speed manual, Kinetic Blue #170 2004 BA wagon RTV project. 1998 EL XR8, Auto, Hot Chilli Red 1993 ED XR6, 5speed, Polynesian Green. 1 of 329. Retired 1968 XT Falcon 500 wagon, 3 on the tree, 3.6L. Patina project. |
||
20-06-2010, 05:32 PM | #9 | ||
Chairman & Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 1975
Posts: 107,515
|
The weight figures used are all from Ford brochures as printed at the time but as these were manufacturers claims and different State registration branches have used alternate ones they should be taken with a grain of salt.
Cheers Russ
__________________
Observatio Facta Rotae
|
||
20-06-2010, 05:56 PM | #10 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 3,246
|
Nice work Russ!
Incidentally, i weighed my AU1 VCT auto at the council weighbridge. 1680kg with driver and minimal fual on board. So, 1600kg kerb weight.
__________________
BA2 XR8 Rapid M6 Ute - Lid - Tint -18s 226.8rwkW@178kmh/537Nm@140kmh 1/9/2013 14.2@163kmh 23/10/2013 Boss349 built. Not yet run. Waiting on a shell. Retrotech thread http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...1363569&page=6 |
||
20-06-2010, 10:54 PM | #11 | ||
Where to next??
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,893
|
Can't believe how light the XF's were. I remember when paying dads rego for his XF I noticed they were considered a medium sized car.. probably went by weight rather than size.
|
||