Is your car built for pure performance or balanced for comfort/luxury?

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by smciner1

My XB GT is built for speed, but I haven't stripped it out. I have no intention to. I still want it to be comfortable (as mid 70's Falcons go) so it still has full interior, insulation etc. Basically everything in the drive line has been modified to improve speed, braking and handling, while still looking period standard from the outside and still be good to drive on an interstate trip.

Amen to this, I have no inclinations whatsoever to roll around in a U PULL IT spec shell

always roll full metal jacket, spare, jack, little bag of tools and handful of pushrods in the glovebox

if you need to strip it out for fasts you ain't got enough grunt

make the power = shift the weight

[galaxy xr8]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

Amen to this, I have no inclinations whatsoever to roll around in a U PULL IT spec shell

always roll full metal jacket, spare, jack, little bag of tools and handful of pushrods in the glovebox

if you need to strip it out for fasts you ain't got enough grunt

make the power = shift the weight

Don’t forget the obligatory woman’s stocking on the back seat floor !!!.......oops I mean in the glove box for intended purposes.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by galaxy xr8

Don’t forget the obligatory woman’s stocking on the back seat floor !!!.......oops I mean in the glove box for intended purposes.

Thats my after hours job

[mcnews]

GT-E I guess has the best mix of both as it has everything Ford/FPV had in their arsenal in it, there isn't an option as it comes fully loaded. Then I have significantly upgraded the stereo system and installed Shocksworks fully adjustable suspension all round, got a set of 9" rears for it and put some much better tyres on it than standard so I guess it's a pretty good all rounder now.

[HULK_I6T]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

if you need to strip it out for fasts you ain't got enough grunt

make the power = shift the weight

Never a more true word spoken.. if you want to go fast, add grunt not turn your ride into a billycart.

I was happy with my xr6t to go 300rwkw... so I went to 330rwkw to compensate for the big car audio setup/wheels etc.. I need it all..

[SensationFG8]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

Amen to this, I have no inclinations whatsoever to roll around in a U PULL IT spec shell

always roll full metal jacket, spare, jack, little bag of tools and handful of pushrods in the glovebox

if you need to strip it out for fasts you ain't got enough grunt

make the power = shift the weight

As much as I'd love to agree with you I have cars that follow both philosophies.

"add lightness" works in different ways to "add power" both result in awesome times behind the wheel. I don't know which I prefer...

[CyberWasp]

I got my BT50 for performance and comfort.

In a straight line it is faster than the XR6T because you can go straight ahead through roundabouts and not slow down for speed humps which are every couple of hundred meters in the city these days.

For days when i need extra performance I can remove the back tray and rear seats ect to make the vehicle a lot lighter and easily get more air time over the humps. It is simply amazing how much weight you can shed with a socket set when you need it.

It is also comfortable to drive as it soaks up the bumps of pedestrians and anything else that gets in the way. You get a slight thud but it does not disturb the overall ride like it does in my XR6 because the extra ground clearance and bigger tyres keep the underneath from getting fowled up with debris and repeated bashing sounds underneath whilst driving along.

As for luxury I am still deciding if I should go for Lambs Wool, Suede or Terry Toweling for the seat covers.

[OffRoadFalcon]

Mine's for both!

Combination of off and on road performance. Head down 4WD tracks and long distance touring, and still having decent power and handling...

And being a Falcon, comfy, with a few additions I've made to add some more luxury.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by SensationFG8

As much as I'd love to agree with you I have cars that follow both philosophies.

"add lightness" works in different ways to "add power" both result in awesome times behind the wheel. I don't know which I prefer...

I'm talking old angrys, no mod cons

second gear catch the dashboard on your lap and indicators going tick, tick, tick

new stuff i throw the keys to my sister

same boat??

[SensationFG8]

Old angrys, add power, they're already light enough

[pottery beige]

rusty racing ftw bro

[skoobysGT]

I'm pretty happy with both performance and comfort/luxury from my GEN-F GTS

[BIONIC MAN]

^^^ why don't you go and tell someone on a Holden forum then! ;)

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by OffRoadFalcon

Mine's for both!

Combination of off and on road performance. Head down 4WD tracks and long distance touring, and still having decent power and handling...

And being a Falcon, comfy, with a few additions I've made to add some more luxury.

I love your car

[AUwindsor]

My spare wheel, jack and back seat and rear speakers remain, the weight over the rear axle actually helps traction

if you must remove stuff and leave it at the house, do it from the front half of the car

imo any passenger car around 1.5 ton is not a bad weight. anymore than that is just overweight, and at 1800+kg is an obesity epidemic

[HULK_I6T]

Does weight at the rear of the car affect performance moreso than weight at the front of the car?

A passenger sitting in front doesn't seem to affect performance too much.. But add 70-90kg of weight in the boot seems to hurt performance.

[castellan]

It has everything I want and no complaints with it the way it came from factory but for the speed limiter set at 210km/h I hated that and maybe the 17 in wheels are a bit to big as on muddy track roads as the tyre profile is to low so that mud builds up inside of the wheels and sharp rocks can destroy the sidewalls.
But apart from that it's magic.

[duaned]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

i like them stock with rust

it makes them lighter and faster

Now I finally know the reason you like Fords!

[Struggo]

Add 1 x FG MKII G6ET + Shockworks Coilovers = All I need

Side Note: Need to rid the car of Dunlop tyres

[ftssjk]

I'm too poor to pay for new leaf springs on my falcon so I'd have to say neither :P.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by HULK_I6T

Does weight at the rear of the car affect performance moreso than weight at the front of the car?

A passenger sitting in front doesn't seem to affect performance too much.. But add 70-90kg of weight in the boot seems to hurt performance.

HULK, I made the claim that I got a 12.509 second quarter out of my totally stock and untuned XR6 T at WSID and you questioned whether I had some sneaky mods to get the result, I think I successfully answered that in my post 380 of 28/12/14 ("SS vs XR8 and the winner is" thread).

However, what I did do was leave the jack and full sized spare in the boot with only around 15 - 20 litres of fuel in the tank (which as we know is in front of the back wheels). Additionally and importantly though, I put around 20 kg's of tools and other items at the back of the boot. Hence the 12.5 second result that you questioned.

Here's an important point. If I had taken everything out of the boot, the time would have been well into the 13's, and I feel sure you wouldn't have questioned it.

Unless there is extremely good grip at a track, or you've got special tyres, I'd say that taking weight out of the back of a car like an XR6T is a very bad move.

I feel qualified to speak on this subject because I've got the accurate Racelogic GPS based testing gear, which enables very detailed analysis of launch results (centimetres covered and time to hundredths of a second).

I've found that a small percentage of the cars all up weight placed behind the back wheels can give a surprisingly good grip yield, and it won't slow rolling acceleration down by much. Keep in mind, most of the time lost in first gear (where wheelspin is generally a problem) flows into the quarter mile time (eg around 85% of the 0-60 kmh time loss is a likely result).

[2242100]

Originally Posted by HULK_I6T

Does weight at the rear of the car affect performance moreso than weight at the front of the car?

A passenger sitting in front doesn't seem to affect performance too much.. But add 70-90kg of weight in the boot seems to hurt performance.

I should have also mentioned in my last post that I can't see the actual positioning of added weight having much affect on rolling acceleration performance.

Points to consider here I think are the affect on driveshaft angle and aerodynamics if the front of the car is raised up. Perhaps it hurts at very speeds, but
from my personal experience, weight has a similar effect on rolling acceleration regardless of where it is.

[AUwindsor]

every 50kg static weight will only slow you down 0.10 of a second in 1/4 mile

but adding 50kg of weight as 2242100 has said, in the boot, 50kg over the diff to keep the tyres from spinning will drop 1/4 mile et's A LOT MORE than 0.10, for a front engine RWD car which lacks proper traction...

[stevanford]

The mods on my G6ET are all performance oriented, however, as it's a G6ET, it's comfortable and luxurious enough as is for me.

[sexyxe]

I think I've done pretty well with my new car.

But the BF F6 was a pretty nice car (modded) to though!

[blueoval]

My Subaru has a bit of both. Comfort, Luxury, Handling and performance. Sure it's not the fastest thing in the world, but for the price I paid for it and what Im getting in return, I cannot complain.

[flooded one]

Originally Posted by AUwindsor

every 50kg static weight will only slow you down 0.10 of a second in 1/4 mile

but adding 50kg of weight as 2242100 has said, in the boot, 50kg over the diff to keep the tyres from spinning will drop 1/4 mile et's A LOT MORE than 0.10, for a front engine RWD car which lacks proper traction...

150kgs in the back of my ute seems helps with traction... so yes I do agree with that theory. unloaded my ute is very easy to wheel spin... haven't tried it down quarter mile thou....

[2242100]

Originally Posted by wildrider

150kgs in the back of my ute seems helps with traction... so yes I do agree with that theory. unloaded my ute is very easy to wheel spin... haven't tried it down quarter mile thou....

I guess the idea is to have just enough weight at the back of the car to prevent wheelspin when you're getting the maximum possible torque at the wheels in first gear. Although I'm thinking that 150 kg's of ballast would be a lot more than what would be needed in most situations.
When I got the 12.509 second quarter mile timeslip at WSID, there was no evident wheelspin, but on the next run the track must have cooled down slightly and although I used around the same stall revs (approx 1900), there was a moderate amount of wheelspin, but the launch still seemed pretty good to me.

However the wheelspin caused a reasonably significant time loss, as shown below.

I've listed the GPS measured 0-64 kmh times for the two runs because the car was just out of first gear at this speed, and from then on wheelspin wasn't a problem. It's a particularly good comparison I think, because the 64 kmh to 180 kmh times on both runs were practically equal. The later (64-180) time being just a miniscule 2 hundredths of a second faster

EARLY QUARTER MILE RUN...................................LATER SLOWER 1/4 RUN
0-10 kmh.......0.45 seconds.......................................0.50 seconds
0-20..............0.84.............................. .....................0.96
0-30..............1.23.............................. .....................1.43
0-40..............1.61.............................. .....................1.85
0-50..............1.98.............................. .....................2.24
0-60..............2.37.............................. .....................2.67
0-64..............2.57.............................. .....................2.91

60 foot time 1.934 seconds......................................2.128 seconds

1/4 mile timeslip 12.509 seconds...............................12.841 seconds

So that shows the effect of just a fairly moderate amount of wheelspin, the car lost practically a third of a second (0.332 sec). It's certainly better if you can avoid any wheelspin.
In each case I shallow staged as much as possible so the rollout was very similar.