|
TROYMAN |
|
||
|
{USERNAME} wrote: also the xr6 hp was faster then the vct falcon and the xr8 and ford didnt worry about that! and the vct and xr8 were worth more! i think the hp xr6 was faster because it was lighter than the vct xr6 due to the vct model having that heave a** irs rear end.. |
||
Top | |
TROYMAN |
|
||
|
ive got the vct engine running in my ed with the vct hooked up to an rpm switch. and with the vct working the down low torque and throttle responce is excellant...
and when the vct switches over the top end pull is strong up to rev cut.. its definatly a different feel compared to the ed/ef engine that was in there.. i havnt had it dyno'd or run down the 1/4 but the everyday drivability is excellant. ![]() |
||
Top | |
Icarus |
|
|||
|
Nice work Troyman, very clean.
I think that the vct would be awesome in a lighter body, as said, it was the IRS that slowed the VCT down http://www.trueblueford.com/AU_XR_Specifications.html With standard camshaft and aggressive tune I think VCT would be awesome, however I am looking at modifying the head and camshaft profile and the workshops I called all seemed to say the same thing, "Won't make a difference"
_________________ WARNING: Material may offend some viewers... |
|||
Top | |
Autofast2 |
|
||
|
i will agree with what troyman has done and it would be better in a lighter car....the au vct also got rear electric windows so it does have a weight problem and a few more welds around the rear end aswell
![]() ![]() ![]()
_________________ YOU CAN LIVE IN A CAR BUT YOU CANT DRIVE A HOUSE |
||
Top | |
Who is online |
---|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests |