SVT was going to let us have their DOHC 5.4, but as I said, there was no tooling for it left. Why would they have refused us the 4.6? More money for them...
XR8 would have gotten the Mach1's 227kW 4.6. Ford USA is not stupid enough to give Ford Australia engines that can't begin to compete with a Camry Sportivo.. let alone SS's and stuff. Sure they are stupid, they build cars like Taurus, but they're not THAT stupid. I don't see why the Supercharged 4.6 would be pricey either, considering a brand new 390hp Mustang SVT Cobra costs less then a Falcon XR8 here.. $50,130 = $35,780.61 USD. That's XR8's MSRP. Cobra's MSRP is $34,745 US. Add $625 Destination and Delivery charges.. $35,370. Still cheaper but $410.61. Not to mention that it will totally rape an XR8 in anything to do with performance.
Originally Posted by chevypower
just checked on the US Ford website, and there was no supercharged Cobra - are you sure this wasnt a Saleen or prototype?
LMFAO, where on Ford's site did you find the 2001 Cobra? The history section?
<-- click vehicle specs.. 390hp 390lb-ft Supercharged V8.
Originally Posted by IPhido
WHOOO YEE.. I doubt we would have got the Supercharged engine, thats part of SVO's range.. If we did it would be really pricey.. They wouldn't let us have it cheap
Why wouldn't we? Its a mass production engine. No development spending required (unlike Boss290). The Cobra is $400 US CHEAPER then a bloody Boss260 powered XR8! You haven't given a valid reason other than it belongs to SVT. Big deal, SVT is 100% Ford owned.. they don't go of and say "No." They never have. Hell, in EB Falcon days we had BETTER engines then SVT did. EB Falcon GT = 200kW 420Nm 5.0 Windsor V8 (268hp 310lb/ft). 1993 SVT Cobra R = 235hp 280lb/ft (175kW 379Nm). I thought you said Ford AUS has a hard time justifying doing thigs for our "little audience" yet their best Mustang at the time, was far less powerful then a Falcon GT. In fact, an XR8 was almost at Cobra R level (166kW 388Nm). There is absolutley no reason why they would not have given us the Supercharged 4.6. And it is a far better engine then out Boss 5.4 will ever be, unless they come to their senses and Supercharge it, like the 4.6, then maybe the Boss will be far better.
Originally Posted by T_Terror
If prefer a 4.6 personally. A hard-revving screamer does it for me, but i suppose most GT/XR8 owners would prefer more low down torque than power up high.
SVT Cobra is rated to having 528Nm (390lbft) @ 3500rpm and 390hp @ 6000rpm. That engine makes more torque at lower RPM then our Boss 290.
Originally Posted by IPhido
So as you can see Falcon got a massive hit of power compared to what Ford in the US peddles. Yes our cars are now heavier and less fuel efficent, but atleast they are pretty quick..
You see, one thing though, US sports car engines, and most engines in these types of cars, tend to be UNDERRATED. See, a Bpss290 is rated at 290kW, and makes 240 - 250kW at the wheels. A Mustang Mach1 is rated to 227kW and makes 240kW at the wheels. Hence why it can outrun a HSV GTS with "only" 227kW. Our makers don't do this, they seem content with in some cases, lying about flywheel power, when it truley is lower. I can't wait until someone engine dynos a Boss290, and finds the final power reading to say "265.0kW" or "270.0kW" and be in total shock. I'd expect to see that, considering how slow our cars are. FPV GT = low 14s average. Its Holden competition is low 13s average. Its US equivalent is mid 12s average. What is FPV doing wrong here? Don't forget, that Supercharged 4.6 is rated at 291kW from the factory, put puts down 275kW at the treads.. I'd say its got a tad more then 291kW... wouldn't you? My friend in the states had a 2002 Ford SVT Lightning. Rated at 380hp stock. Put down 356rwhp stock. 305rwhp would have been a more appropriate figure for a 380hp car... He currently has a 1996 Impala SS thats rated at 260hp stock... yet puts down 260rwhp stock. Hmm...