stock commo/falcon times, does turbo sell?

niko · 19-03-2005, 09:05 AM

was looking at wheels other day and noticed the falcon has a tiny edge on 0-100times and was impressed! i think was 12.2 vs 12.8 this is new news to me as i didnt actually know wat the times where, they ended up being quite similar only really big difference was fuel economy.

but wat was more exciting was the concept of a turbo territory!!!!!!!

Steffo · 19-03-2005, 12:12 PM

Um... were you looking at XF 3.3 Falcons? I don't know of any new ones that are that slow to 100km/h........

**M&Ms** · 19-03-2005, 12:49 PM

is 12.2 and 12.8 the fuel economy figure or the 0-100 time???

Damo · 19-03-2005, 01:15 PM

lol niko. That didn't make much sence..

Dez · 19-03-2005, 01:38 PM

lol, glad im not the only 1 that thought that was slow....

isnt a more reasonable time about half that.....6-7 seconds?

LUXO_8 · 19-03-2005, 01:44 PM

from my understanding wheels do 0 - 100 - 0 times

so that 12 sec time os accelerating from 0 to 100 then braking from 100 - 0

Steffo · 19-03-2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MADNC_8

from my understanding wheels do 0 - 100 - 0 times

so that 12 sec time os accelerating from 0 to 100 then braking from 100 - 0

When has Wheels ever done 0-100-0? I've been collecting it for the past 3 years (bought the odd issue before then) and never seen 0-100-0 ever.

LUXO_8 · 19-03-2005, 01:56 PM

oohk then, i was sure they did, and the time that was stated would be what a falc would do,

Dez · 19-03-2005, 02:11 PM

yeah never heard of 0-100-0 either....just 0-100

12.2 that'd sound closer to 12.2L/100km.....but even then, when i drive my dads BA fairmont i always average 10L/100km on the freeway, which is pretty damn good i think, and takes the "worse fuel economy" factor out of the BA write-ups that i've read....thats pretty much all they fault it on.....its weight contributing to lower fuel econonmy, and that the weight is only there because of added safety features.

mcflux · 21-03-2005, 02:53 PM

maybe that's 0-100mph?

donno · 21-03-2005, 05:41 PM

Perhaps it was towing a boat?

Psycho Chicken · 21-03-2005, 07:48 PM

Or flat shifting.

dogbreath_48 · 22-03-2005, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donno

Perhaps it was towing a boat?

...a big one!

But we're missing the point; the falcon was 0.6 of something or other better or worse than the commo! woohoo/booooo!

-Stu

RG · 22-03-2005, 02:51 PM

with the times i'd say towing a commo!

:

neb · 22-03-2005, 03:21 PM

lol yeah i think they'd be closer to the 7 second mark

LUXO_8 · 22-03-2005, 05:45 PM

wheels drivers mustnt be able to drive if thats the best they can get out of a falc or commo....

Cobra · 22-03-2005, 05:52 PM

Motor got a 7.2 or 7.3 for a stock manual BA XT. I think COmmodores do it in high 7's. Not sure about the new alloytec though. Maybe the SV6 does it in under 7 seconds?

Dez · 22-03-2005, 05:56 PM

grechie was saying that in the latest edition...either wheels or motor, that the mkII futura beat the alloytec 190KW holden down the 1/4....

he said the holden was in front for the first 6 seconds....so it would probably do the 0-100m quicker

LUXO_8 · 22-03-2005, 06:09 PM

well, the VZ 6 being quicker than the BA 6 doesnt supprise me in the slightest, having 5kw more power and less weight....

Dez · 22-03-2005, 06:15 PM

thats why the heavier less powered BA beating it on the 1/4 surprised me a lot!

Cobra · 22-03-2005, 06:17 PM

BA has heaps more torque though. Alloytec V6 you have to rev the shyte out of to get it to move. And it sounds like a sewing machine on steroids while you're doing it.

22-03-2005, 09:28 PM

I'd say 12.2 and 12.8 is meant to be fuel consumption per 100km rather than acceleration.

FordFan86 · 22-03-2005, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobra

BA has heaps more torque though. Alloytec V6 you have to rev the shyte out of to get it to move. And it sounds like a sewing machine on steroids while you're doing it.

Lmfao

MickyB · 22-03-2005, 10:11 PM

I have the latest Wheels here,
VZ Acclaim 175kw Vs BAII Falcon Futura

Fuel consumption: 13.9 L/100km Vs 15.9 L/100km
0-60: 4.0 sec Vs 4.1
0-80: 5.8 Vs 5.9
0-100: 8.5 Vs 8.2
0-120: 11.4 Vs 10.9
0-140: 15.1 Vs 14.3
0-400m: 16.0 Vs 15.9

80-120 5.5 Vs 5.1

So it appears that the BAII has the wood on the 175/4 speed combo, after driving my mates SV6 190/5 speed combo I would expect it to be much more even though.

Dez · 22-03-2005, 11:03 PM

so the ford takes it up the top end.....

Grechie told me that the ford still won on the 1/4 against the 190kw holden, but was behind for the first 6-7 seconds

LUXO_8 · 22-03-2005, 11:10 PM

oh yeah, theres a 175kw/4 auto version...... i forgot about that one lol

V8 Ghia · 23-03-2005, 08:03 AM

[QUOTE=MickyB]I have the latest Wheels here,
Fuel consumption: 13.9 L/100km Vs 15.9 L/100km
QUOTE]
Is that fuel consumption correct on the BAII seems very high (I thought BA 6 cyl used around 13L/100 on average), anyone got a BA have similar fuel consumption?

MickyB · 23-03-2005, 11:59 AM

[QUOTE=ED I6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MickyB

I have the latest Wheels here,
Fuel consumption: 13.9 L/100km Vs 15.9 L/100km
QUOTE]
Is that fuel consumption correct on the BAII seems very high (I thought BA 6 cyl used around 13L/100 on average), anyone got a BA have similar fuel consumption?

Yeh those figures are correct, Wheels say it was a mix of city, expressway and country km's. It is quite high though, they must have been pushing it hard.

XplosiveR6 · 23-03-2005, 12:07 PM

[QUOTE=MickyB]I have the latest Wheels here,
VZ Acclaim 175kw Vs BAII Falcon Futura

Fuel consumption: 13.9 L/100km Vs 15.9 L/100km
0-60: 4.0 sec Vs 4.1
0-80: 5.8 Vs 5.9
0-100: 8.5 Vs 8.2
0-120: 11.4 Vs 10.9
0-140: 15.1 Vs 14.3
0-400m: 16.0 Vs 15.9

80-120 5.5 Vs 5.1

So it appears that the BAII has the wood on the 175/4 speed combo, after driving my mates SV6 190/5 speed combo I would expect it to be much more even though.[/QUOTE=MickyB]

thats a poor 0-400M time, XT's have gotten low 15s standard before.

of course the ford has more fuel consumption, heaps more tourque + more weight + bigger( + much smoother) motor = more fuel consumption

MickyB · 23-03-2005, 12:23 PM

Wheels did comment that the BAII they tested didn't feel as 'lively' as a BA tested in previous issues, and it didn't record as fast times either.