Ford Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
T5 Expert Operator
Joined
·
6,542 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Yeah guys it has puzzled me for a while, that reading when the EA's were first released the EA S with the 139kw multipoint, 5 speed running a 2.77 diff, done 0-100 in under 8 secs and 400m in 15.5. Could this really be?:confused: :confused:
They even said it could keep up or is line ball with a VL Turbo.

Also doing abit of maths, my car has a better power to weight ratio that that EA. EF Auto was rated at 8.3 0-100 and 16.3 0-400m, I'm guess that my car will do 8's and 16's flat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,023 Posts
Yep ive read that too, Wheels also got a EA MPI 5 speed Wagon to do 15.9. The Manuals had 2.92 diff ratio and they were fairly light for a Falcon at around 1450kg.

IMO those times are correct for them being driven 9-9.5/10ths, most mags these days probably give about 8.5-9/10ths with half a tank of petrol and a passanger.

Also the 200kw/220kw AU XR8 should be able to do low 14s with an expert driver
 

·
blue blooded ford fan
Joined
·
190 Posts
well vl turbos with the 5 speed manual came standard with 3.45 borg warner diff! with 150 kW at the rears, it also pulled the 1/4 in 15.3-15.5. the auto version hammered down at 15.9 to 16.1 , depends on who u ask.
 

·
T5 Expert Operator
Joined
·
6,542 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
The EA's are no slouch thats for sure, but it goes to show the manual falcons are a hell of alot quick than their sister auto's.

I think the EA in Series II guise with the first 4 speed auto's managed to do 9.5 0-100 and mid 17's 1/4 mile.

Also the EA had the 3.2L IL6, i'm not sure if there were too many of those sold. This engine was abit of a let down on the ford performance scene. :( :( :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,023 Posts
Wheels got 17.5 1/4 for the 3.2L 5 speed, I can only imagine how slow it would be with the Auto :eek::eek: Good thing is though that the engine was dropped after 1988 and they cant have been many sold cause ive never seen one.
 

·
CEO - The BSR Group
Joined
·
4,400 Posts
Yeah my old EA2 Ghia wasn't a slouch for an auto. I had always wanted to drop in a manual box, and came very close to doing it. All up the conversion was quoted to me at $1400 (a few years ago). Damn, was I tempted! :) The manual S was the other option that I was looking at when I got the Ghia, but there were bugger all of them around in Newcastle, and the ones I bothered travelling to Sydney for were all rather dodgy and driven into the ground! :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,112 Posts
December 1988 we rented an EA wagon and it was blessed (cursed) with the 3.2L with the 3 speed column auto. At the time we thought it was pretty quick. Then again we did own a 1960 Land Rover! That was the only 3.2L EA I've ever seen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
EF_Falcon_GuY said:
Yeah guys it has puzzled me for a while, that reading when the EA's were first released the EA S with the 139kw multipoint, 5 speed running a 2.77 diff, done 0-100 in under 8 secs and 400m in 15.5. Could this really be?:confused: :confused:
They even said it could keep up or is line ball with a VL Turbo.
Yes they were pretty quick, and the strange thing is we've been getting more powerful motors+extra weight=slower cars up until the XR's of late. Going on the books I've got here, the Auto ran the 2.77 diff whereas the manuals run the 2.92. Mind you that might be the S pack only.
Coming straight out of Hot Fords number 2, artivle entitled "Son of GT" I quote "What you get, though, is a Falcon which will run those 15.5 quarters all day long and pull 215 km/h in top on any reasonable straight."
And out of the August-September 1989 Performance Street Car Mag, Mick Webb's SVO Turbo beat out 11 other cars to get quickest time with a 14.18 quarter. XY HO second on 14.37 and a RPO83 XA in third with a 14.69. Holdens, Valiants in the pack and an XR GT pulling a 17.25 in last spot.;)
Also, I still remember the EA's destroying the VN's in production cars racing with Youlden Snr. at the wheel.(his son now winning GTP races in an AU XR.) :)
Rastus.
 

·
T5 Expert Operator
Joined
·
6,542 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I reckon there testin cars more conservatively (like two up with 1/2 petrol) and they don't drive em that hard cause i worked out that my car has a better power to weight ratio against the EA S sedan. I'll post up the calcs when i whip out the test article.



:confused: :confused: :confused:
 

·
Australian Falcon Member
Joined
·
865 Posts
The factory workshop manual for EA/EB/EBII(ED) states that the "SS has a unique cam gear". I've spoken to Ford dealer spares departments about this and all they can find is a discontinued "Group E" cam gear in their catalogues and they've never heard of an "SS" Falcon - only Falcon S.

I've been told that the gear in question resulted in 2 degrees retarded cam timing. The manual doesn't say anything about other differences for this "SS" (which presumably reached the showroom as just "S") - although there are references to the (later) XR6 as having "unique" camshaft and valve springs and of course slightly smaller volume combustion chamber (higher comp).

In short, the EA Falcon S seems to have been pretty std as far as engine and management but with the cam timing 2 degrees later. I've been told that they also had many of the suspension tweaks that later came out on XR6's.

I've personally found that although the general rule of thumb is cam advance for low down grunt, cam retard for top end grunt - with tradeoffs in the opposite end in each case, when I've advanced and retarded my cam I get much less loss in bottom vs improvement in top when I retard the cam a tad. So what they did with the S makes sense.

Fascinating to trip over someone who's commenting on the performance of the EA Falcon S, because in light of the info above I've often pondered on what the result was.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,023 Posts
Its interesting that you mention that because ive got a EA-ED Max Ellery Workshop manual, and it also mentions a 6 cyl SS Falcon. I just assumed that the moron who wrote it was confused with Holden :confused:;)

It lists the compression ratio for the 'SS' and XR6 as 9.01:1 compared to 8.8:1 for standard.
Combustion Chamber volume is 58-60cc (approx) for the SS and XR6 compared to 60.95-63.45cc for the 3.9L and 62.25-64.75cc for the 4.0L

Doesnt mention anything about the Cam though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,112 Posts
From what I've been told the SS was an XR6 with a few little changes for racing. I belive they used the V8 gearbox and diff and I think they used bits of the EB GT suspension.
 

·
Australian Ford Member
Joined
·
1,120 Posts
I'm wondering what sort of improvement I'd get from a standard 9/1988 EA S pack 3.9 mpi 5 sp manual if I swapped the current 2.92 diff for a 3.23 or maybe even higher? I'm after quick acceleration in all gears and not worried about losing some top end speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,023 Posts
An XR6 (3.45) diff ratio would be the best idea because the parts are available fairly easily, and you wouldnt loose any top end speed either, itll still top out at around 210 or so. Fuel economy will suffer a little but it will be a few tenths quicker over the 1/4 :cool:
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
About this Discussion
13 Replies
8 Participants
Martin
Ford Forums
Ford Forum is a community to discuss all things Ford. Check out our discussions on the Ford Escape, Mustang, Edge, F-150, Raptor, Explorer, Focus, Fusion, Fiesta and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top