Xr6 turbo vs VL turbo? - Page 2 - Ford Forums

Pearly · 09-05-2002, 15:38

damn, I can't wait to see these crazy 350kw, 450kw turbo falcons appearing in magazines.

RATT · 09-05-2002, 15:49

Single turbo systems are more efficient and easier to increase power. Twins are more for drivability ie torque at low revs, not outright power which a single Turbo set-up is best for.

KenOath · 09-05-2002, 17:04

Quote:

Originally posted by RATT
Single turbo systems are more efficient and easier to increase power. Twins are more for drivability ie torque at low revs, not outright power which a single Turbo set-up is best for.

Yeah, but we have VCT to develop low down torque in our 6. So we don't need a Twin Turbo!

I love this car more and more every day!

CurrenZS · 09-05-2002, 18:37

i'd think itd be very possible that Holden slaps a turbo on the new V6 because the engine is being used in Saabs as well, and we all know what every Saab has...

slapper · 09-09-2002, 02:50

V6 arrangements don't need twin turbo's - have a look at the US Buick Regals, only the single turbo. Owning a 12 sec VL Turbo myself, I reckon its a safe bet that the new xr6 turbo will achieve the same status as the VL. Not only will it be quicker, it will handle & brake much better than the VL. I can see a lot of 10sec Ford's on the street in the near future!! Hopefully I'll be driving one! Good riddance to the VL!

Rodderz · 09-09-2002, 03:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Oath

Yeah, but we have VCT to develop low down torque in our 6. So we don't need a Twin Turbo!

VCT motors have an advantage over v6's in a way that the timing of the cam changes the attitude of the engine to produce power lower/higher in the revs so that ignition occurs advanced/retarded, depending on revs. With the BA having twin VCT it greatly expandes this. Apparently the 182kw for the xt is actually underpowered.

Having owning a v6 myself it goes well but only really at higher revs, and takes longer to get there.