Re: Ford's 5.6 litre is Faster than the Clubsport Do You Agree

Discussion in '2001 Ford Falcon 300' started by Tickford5400, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. nfsracing is on the money.
     
  2. kilowatt times 4/3 = horsepower
    horsepower times .75 = kilowatt
     
  3. Ford's 5.6 litre is Faster than the Clubsport Do You Agree

    Apart from that, the 300+ wont be in production, but AEC is waiting for the AV Falcon , and they probably be on a project in the next 12 months...


    The 5.6 litre has much more torque than HSV's LS1, and the stats go for the 5.6 litre that on a good day it can do 0-100kmh in 5.8sec and 1/4 mile in 13.9sec and they say it will beat the clubsport by 1/10 of a sec at the 1/4 mile... they thought Ford could not come back.. oh they are back this CAR resets the Time of The XY GTHO Phase III which was 14.2sec 1/4 mile..
     
  4. The New 5.6 is indeed faster then the clubsport and in my opinion is in the league of the sv300 when it comes to performance as the 220kw t series was already the better car due to its suprior performance. now this has bucketloads more straight line speed and has a slightly better handling setup then the previous model so it will own a clubsport and not fall short of a sv300.<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Too right Nfsracing. =)
     
  6. ANY Holden or HSV with any amount of power is a piece of crap compared to the sheer brilliance of the Falcon chassis. Now with the 5.6 engine, what was already superior is now in another league! Read and weep all you Holden loving pricks!!
     
  7. Finally some people that have good common sense and a vast knowledge of cars. the new 5.6 although an older engine, is a 'masterpiece' created here in good old OZ. Combined with one of the best chassis and transmissions in a locally built car, who can wait for the AV model release?? GO THE MIGHTY FORDS<!-- Signature -->
     
  8. THE HSV GTS 300 KIKS THIS FORD ASS

    hsv gts 300 will always rip ur shitty little ford thats why ford going bankrupt they dont have style and they dont have good cars!!!!!!
     
  9. AND THEY DONT HAVE MONEY FOR IS SHIT

    AND THEY DONT HAVE MONEY
    FORD IS SHIT THEY WILL ALWAYS BE SHIT
     
  10. Re: THE HSV GTS 300 KIKS THIS FORD ASS

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from andyy101</i>
    <b>hsv gts 300 will always rip ur shitty little ford thats why ford going bankrupt they dont have style and they dont have good cars!!!!!!
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    They're not going bank rupt far from it. I think you Holden guys know who is better and are getting worried, Ford were sick of being bagged for their lack of power now they have got up with a bang. Just wait until AV comes. The HSV rattler won't be all that!!<!-- Signature -->
     
  11. Hey, I'm a Yank, and I was wondering what kind of engine this 5.6 liter is that Ford has in Australia. Is it a pushrod V8, or is it modular with single or double overhead cams???<!-- Signature -->
     
  12. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from FORD4EVR</i>
    <b>Hey, I'm a Yank, and I was wondering what kind of engine this 5.6 liter is that Ford has in Australia. Is it a pushrod V8, or is it modular with single or double overhead cams???</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    yeah its the 'old' 5.0 litre windsor stroked out to 5.6, so yeah pushrod, the last of them, this year ford are changing to the 5.4 and 4.6 OHC<!-- Signature -->
     
  13. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from FORD4EVR</i>
    <b>Hey, I'm a Yank, and I was wondering what kind of engine this 5.6 liter is that Ford has in Australia. Is it a pushrod V8, or is it modular with single or double overhead cams???</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->Nah man, it's just a windsor 5litre with a 347 stroker kit and a few other internals replaced from stock.<!-- Signature -->
     
  14. Man, a 347??? That's totally cool. I noticed the specs on the new T-Series are 250kw of power and 500Nm of torque. Can anyone tell me what those figures equate to in horsepower and lb-feet?? <!-- Signature -->
     
  15. Well to translate horsepower to kw, you multiply it by 1.45, but im not 100% on the torque equation.
     
  16. The Ford 5.6L engine is a 302 winsor that has been increased in size, through this engine will not be used in these cars soon as they have stoped making the winsors and it will be replaced a a 5.4L engine used in the ford mustang that is more power full.
     
  17. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from WildStud</i>
    <b>Apart from that, the 300+ wont be in production, but AEC is waiting for the AV Falcon , and they probably be on a project in the next 12 months...


    The 5.6 litre has much more torque than HSV's LS1, and the stats go for the 5.6 litre that on a good day it can do 0-100kmh in 5.8sec and 1/4 mile in 13.9sec and they say it will beat the clubsport by 1/10 of a sec at the 1/4 mile... they thought Ford could not come back.. oh they are back this CAR resets the Time of The XY GTHO Phase III which was 14.2sec 1/4 mile.. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->On the performace car of they year tests this year the TE50 was slower than the Clubsport R8...despite the car unnormally lacking grip from each end.<!-- Signature -->
     
  18. The Ford 5.6 is marginally faster than the Clubsport - by one or 2 tenths of a second over the 1/4 mile (this result has been shown 2 or 3 times by motoring magazine comparisons)- It is helped by the big fat torque curve it has, but the HSV seems to have better top end power, which helps it close the gap, but not overcome the Ford. That is from a 5.6L whereas the HSV is a 5.7L - Ford can do more with less. On top of that, the Ford's handling is superior and more communicative than the HSV. If Ford can outgun the HSV's new GenIII engine with a 40 year old design V8 (the Windsor), imagine how big an arse kicking Holden/HSV will get when the new modular Ford V8 is used later this year in the AV Falcon! The GT will be revived and the HSV GTS300 will have something to worry about - all this from a 5.4L motor whereas the Chev motor is 5.7L
     
  19. BTW, I was referring to the comparison of the new FTE Falcon versus the HSV Clubsport (which has 255Kw). It's not in the same league as the GTS300 in terms of straight line speed, but the anticipated AV Falcon GT (which is rumored to pump out 310KW from the new 5.4L V8) will take that crown from the flagship HSV. HSV will probably then put their 350KW 6.2L V8 that they have been fiddling with into the GTS because they won't be able to match Ford cube for cube in the performance stakes because that's the only way they can beat Ford in the horsepower game - put a larger engine in. Ford got 220KW from a 5L V8 - Holden could only manage 195KW from their old 5.0L V8.
     
  20. Info for FORD4EVR

    KW to HP - multiply by 1.326 (100HP = 75.4KW)

    Nm to lb/feet - divide by 1.355

    so the 5.6L Ford has 332HP and 369 lb/ft
     
  21. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from pauljh74</i>
    <b>The Ford 5.6 is marginally faster than the Clubsport - by one or 2 tenths of a second over the 1/4 mile (this result has been shown 2 or 3 times by motoring magazine comparisons)- It is helped by the big fat torque curve it has, but the HSV seems to have better top end power, which helps it close the gap, but not overcome the Ford. That is from a 5.6L whereas the HSV is a 5.7L - Ford can do more with less. On top of that, the Ford's handling is superior and more communicative than the HSV. If Ford can outgun the HSV's new GenIII engine with a 40 year old design V8 (the Windsor), imagine how big an arse kicking Holden/HSV will get when the new modular Ford V8 is used later this year in the AV Falcon! The GT will be revived and the HSV GTS300 will have something to worry about - all this from a 5.4L motor whereas the Chev motor is 5.7L</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->Ford has 5.6L and HSV has 5.7? Well if my mathematics is correct and Tickford_5400's correct in saying the Windsor is a stroked 347, then the Ford engine is actually marginally bigger. 347 cubic inches is equal to 5686cc's. The Chev V8 used by Holden is actually only 5665cc's, or 345cc's. And stop going on about your engine being superior, you are comparing a detuned engine with a 40 year old engine which Ford has done everything possible bar forced induction to achieve maximum performance. Don't get me wrong I respect Ford for doing this, but the 2 engines are not in the same league despite having similar power outputs at this stage...<!-- Signature -->
     
  22. The information on the capacity was from Motor magazine. From there on I used straightforward mathematics to come to those conversions. The body and suspension in the car I referred to was a kit car, the engine was a Windsor 5.0 litre, tweaked by the prducers of the car, not a kit motor. Ford actually had a 192KW XR8 Sprint with the ED series back in '93. Only needed 5 litres to do it too. They got 220KW out of the 5.0 litre last year before deciding upon a stroked version. Winning the power game by jacking up the capacity by more than 15% over the competitor with a stroker engine is a flawed victory - it is the easier way of finding more power. Shows that Holden were struggling to get any more power from their 5.0 litre V8, while Ford were squeezing more out of 5 litres bit by bit. The 230KW 5.7L motor was the blueprinted version which cost buyers an extra $10,000 for 10KW - that was on top of the $70,000+ price tag for the GTS - money well spent there.......NOT! Whereas the 185KW Falcon XR8 was priced under $45000 at that time. Not really a fair comparison considering the 230KW HSV cost almost twice as much as the XR8 in '98.
     
  23. Firstly, the Ford motor is 5615 CC - then divide by 16.387064 to get cubic inches (2.54 cubed). That equals 342.64 cu. inches. So whoever said it was 347 cu. inches was WRONG.

    The Chev motor is 5.665 litres (when you round it off it is 5.7 litres) divided by 16.387064 = 345.69.

    OK, so the capacities are about lineball with the Chev motor a little ahead.

    The Chev 255KW motor is tweaked by HSV and the 300KW version in the GTS was modified by Callaway in the USA. HSV wasn't able to modify it to this level by themselves. Whereas the Ford 5.6 was developed locally. The main reason these 2 cars are compared in motoring comparisons is based on price. In basic form the Tickford TS50 and HSV Clubsport R8 are the same price. Under acceleration the Ford opens the gap to 0.4 seconds at 0-60km/h, but that is closed to 1/10th of a second once the quarter mile is despatched - these figures are from Wheels Jan '02 comparison of these 2 cars. Regarding Ford doing everything possible to the engine. I've seen a kit car with a 5.0L Windsor V8 with 240KW. So 250KW from the 5.6L isn't the most it will give. There is a bit more grunt left in the Windsor, but I'm sure it would come at a decent price premium. HSV were doing something similar with the Holden stroker V8 before it's demise to make way for the Gen III. They only managed 225KW from their 5.7L V8 though.
     
  24. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from pauljh74</i>
    <b>Firstly, the Ford motor is 5615 CC - then divide by 16.387064 to get cubic inches (2.54 cubed). That equals 342.64 cu. inches. So whoever said it was 347 cu. inches was WRONG.

    The Chev motor is 5.665 litres (when you round it off it is 5.7 litres) divided by 16.387064 = 345.69.

    OK, so the capacities are about lineball with the Chev motor a little ahead.

    The Chev 255KW motor is tweaked by HSV and the 300KW version in the GTS was modified by Callaway in the USA. HSV wasn't able to modify it to this level by themselves. Whereas the Ford 5.6 was developed locally. The main reason these 2 cars are compared in motoring comparisons is based on price. In basic form the Tickford TS50 and HSV Clubsport R8 are the same price. Under acceleration the Ford opens the gap to 0.4 seconds at 0-60km/h, but that is closed to 1/10th of a second once the quarter mile is despatched - these figures are from Wheels Jan '02 comparison of these 2 cars. Regarding Ford doing everything possible to the engine. I've seen a kit car with a 5.0L Windsor V8 with 240KW. So 250KW from the 5.6L isn't the most it will give. There is a bit more grunt left in the Windsor, but I'm sure it would come at a decent price premium. HSV were doing something similar with the Holden stroker V8 before it's demise to make way for the Gen III. They only managed 225KW from their 5.7L V8 though. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Well Tickford_5400 (a knowledgeable Ford fan and salesman I believe) quoted the 5.6L at 347ci.
    And as if HSV are not capable of getting 300kw out of that motor. You could give the motor to ANY car company in the world, including HSV and they would get 300+kw out of it. It was probably just cheaper to get Callaway to do it. And what are you referring to as a "kit" for the Windsor? Oh and HSV reached 230kw out of their stroked 5.7L V8 back in 1998 - when Ford was offering at most 185kw I believe. So stop bragging about Ford reaching 250kw 4 years after HSV.<!-- Signature -->
     
  25. Okay, first of all paul, I dont know the exact displacement of the 5.6L engine, but the stroker kit used was one conventionally used for older windsors thats increased thier capacity to 347ci. The windsor we use today was made in mexico, and ex batch of engines that were originally built to go in the explorer. Base power is 175kw and displacement is 4942cc, which using the rounding off method, is actually equal to 4.9litres. But it is a 347 stroker kit used by Tickford for this engine, so either the exact displacement cc figure supplied by motor are incorrect, or there is a discrepency somethere with the information supplied to me, by it beeing the 347 stroker.

    The 346 ls1 is still Ibeleive called the 350 chevy small block. The 351 clevo was also often dubbed 5.7litres in displacment.

    But comone poeple, arent we getting a bit pedantic here. I mean were are coming down to a few mililitres, or the capacity of a mouses bladder.<!-- Signature -->
     

Share This Page