the weight issue again - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars
FPV & Tickford Forum GT, GT-P and all FPV Discussions. Formerly Tickford.

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 9 (permalink) Old 06-13-03, 04:29 AM Thread Starter
one day.......maybe
FordXR8's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Perth
Age: 37
Posts: 446
Motor mag: weight issue again

sorry guys, but not sure if this has been posted before. couldn't find it anywhere.

just wondering if anyone else has noticed in the lastest Motor Mag that they include the claimed and wet weight of all 9 cars tested.
i'm sure by now we're all aware of holdens dodgy method at weighting their cars, and this was show with almost every holden car having a higher wet weight (the correct one as far as i'm concerned) than the claimed weight.
On the other hand, all the Fords had a lower weight. Which brought the fords and holdens a lot closer than i thought.
but what was the biggest surprise was the wet weight of the XR8. Ford claims it at 1795kg i think, but they got a wet weight of only 1707kg. thought it was a miss-print, but even the rear/front split weights add up to 1707kg. sure'll this can't be right. if so, then why does the ford lag as far as it does behind the lower powered SS in performance terms.
anyway, just my 2c.

BTW, the times of the GT are improving with every article i read. if it's true that they're best with 20thou on the clock, i'm sure we'll see close to 5.6sec times soon at the rate they're decreasing.

FordXR8 is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 9 (permalink) Old 06-13-03, 06:12 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Gippsland, Vic.
Age: 47
Posts: 371
l cant possibly see how an XR8 can be 1707kg. Has to be a misprint.

Great to see the GT doing so well, and l agree once they have 20000km on the clock the times will get even better.

Well done Ford
mondie is offline  
post #3 of 9 (permalink) Old 06-15-03, 01:59 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: nsw
Posts: 356
Motor Mag have only done times on the XR8 once back in March. Than they Copy and Paste. They dont even bother doing times.Wheels did a compar on a SS and XR8 and a Clubsport . XR8 0-100 =6.2 SS 0- 100 =6.4 XR8 o-400m= 14.4 SS 0-400m = 14.5. They were tested on the same day.
redwards is offline  
post #4 of 9 (permalink) Old 06-16-03, 04:31 AM
V8 ute driver!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: forest range, south aus.
Posts: 984
Yeah i was looking at the power and weight comparisons, and that the XR8 had a better power to weight ratio than the SS but still ran a slower 1/4 mile. I know gearing plays a part in it but i thought it woulda been a bit closer.
UTE KILLER!! RIP. BA XR8 UTE 24/12/03 - 9/2/04
ED XR6 sedan for sale, manual, 145,000kays, green, stock standard. Good condition.
Any offer considered.
Now driving a 04 BA XR8 Manual Envi ute. Mods to come...
flavze is offline  
post #5 of 9 (permalink) Old 06-16-03, 09:04 PM
Tickford Ruled; FPV Rocks
HP Dude's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 1,457
What has me scratching my head is the claim that the XR8 is nose heavy, yet it achieves almost 50/50 weight distribution front to rear. How does that work???
HP Dude is offline  
post #6 of 9 (permalink) Old 06-16-03, 10:21 PM
Mr Photoshop
CSV_LS1's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Here, There and Everywhere
Age: 33
Posts: 1,155
If the weight is correct, how can the GT weigh 100kw more than XR8. Definetly a missprint. Unless they chucked in an all Alloy boss engine in the XR8
CSV_LS1 is offline  
post #7 of 9 (permalink) Old 06-16-03, 10:30 PM
Tickford Ruled; FPV Rocks
HP Dude's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 1,457
That's a very good point. But you'd think the original mistake would have been picked up when they calculated the weight distribution???
HP Dude is offline  
post #8 of 9 (permalink) Old 06-18-03, 05:54 AM
Registered User
snowman's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Geelong
Posts: 82
I saw an article in either the Age or Australian newspaper motoring sections recently where they said that the weight of the Holdens was not correct. Apparently Holden have been posting the tare weigh of their cars and stating that this was the kerb weight. (Tare = car weight without fluids, i.e. full tank of petrol, water, oil, etc.).

Ford have been publishing kerb weights which includes alll of the above fluids. Apparently Ford management were livid at the perception that the BA was porky in comparison to the Dunnydoor.

Holden have apparently admitted the error, claiming that it was a honest mistake and that the correct figures would be posted soon.

At the end of the day the Falcon is only approximately around a 100 kgs heavier.
snowman is offline  
post #9 of 9 (permalink) Old 06-18-03, 06:31 AM
Ford Europe Wannabe
TurboDOHC's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Good ol' Geelong
Age: 35
Posts: 754 are about a week or so late

All jobs are easy to the person who doesn't have to do them!
TurboDOHC is offline  
Sponsored Links

  Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Ford Cars and PAG Vehicles > Australian Ford's Discussion > FPV & Tickford Forum

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Weight issue Again!! ivorya Australian Falcons 6 05-20-03 07:41 AM

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome