XR8 Enforcer

[rappa]

Mate bought a XR8 Enforcer producing 290 kw ...
? Does Ford talk rwkw or flywheel kw ???

Can anybody answer my question and back it up with pubished proof ...find where on the net a statement by ford ??

Thanks

rappa
















//

[Toddler78]

anyone feel free to correct me if im wron but all car manufacturers quote engine KWs not rear wheel. however ford use a different formula to determine their figures apposed to holden, i beleive that a ford 290 kw vehicle is something simular to holden 260 kw ish

[ratter]

It is flywheel KW's and a enforcer is 260 KW's, it's just a special edition XR8

[Vulture]

It is flywheel KW's and a enforcer is 260 KW's, it's just a special edition XR8

Yep, looks quite nice on the inside with all the leather bits and pieces; I think it has better brakes as well.
Check out this thread http://206.225.84.45/showthread.php?t=5163

[seldo]

anyone feel free to correct me if im wron but all car manufacturers quote engine KWs not rear wheel. however ford use a different formula to determine their figures apposed to holden, i beleive that a ford 290 kw vehicle is something simular to holden 260 kw ish
Correct. They all quote Fwkw, but as you correctly say, Ford use use a slightly more liberal rating system than GM, although it's not quite as optimistic as you say. I think you'll find that a 260kw Ford is about the same as a 255kw GM, so there's a little bit, but not that much difference.

[Dr Smith]

Correct. They all quote Fwkw, but as you correctly say, Ford use use a slightly more liberal rating system than GM, although it's not quite as optimistic as you say. I think you'll find that a 260kw Ford is about the same as a 255kw GM, so there's a little bit, but not that much difference.
True, the test method in measuring the output varies. Eg HSV quote 297kW for the LS2 and 305 kW DIN. Ford use the method which arrives at an output in DIN. You would never really notice the difference at all.

ps. found this:
SAE-certified horsepower
In 2005, the Society of Automotive Engineers introduced a new test procedure (J2723) for engine horsepower and torque. The procedure eliminates some of the areas of flexibility in power measurement, and requires an independent observer present when engines are measured. The test is voluntary, but engines completing it can be advertised as "SAE-certified".

Many manufacturers began switching to the new rating immediately, often with surprising results. The rated output of Cadillac's supercharger Northstar V8 jumped from 440 hp (328 kW) to 469 hp (350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 hp (157 kW) to 190 hp (142 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 hp (373 kW) to 505 hp (377 kW).

hp (DIN)
DIN horsepower is the power measured according to the German standard DIN 70020. It is measured at the flywheel, and is in practical terms equivalent to the SAE net figure. However, be aware that DIN "horsepower" is often expressed in metric (Pferdestärke) rather than mechanical horsepower.

hp (ECE)
ECE R24 is another standard for measuring net horsepower. It is quite similar to the DIN 70020 standard, but the requirement for connecting an engine's fan during testing varies. ECE is seen as slightly more liberal than DIN, and ECE figures tend to be slightly higher than DIN. John Deere is one strong adherent to ECE testing.

[768-EC is a standard from the European Union. Generally, ISO-14396 and 9768-EC metrics are very similar.

ISO 14396
ISO 14396[4] is a new method from the International Standards Organization for all engines not intended for on-road use. Generally, ISO-14396 and 9768-EC metrics are very similar. New Holland is an adherent of ISO-14396 testing.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower

[Aus8]

Correct. They all quote Fwkw, but as you correctly say, Ford use use a slightly more liberal rating system than GM, although it's not quite as optimistic as you say. I think you'll find that a 260kw Ford is about the same as a 255kw GM, so there's a little bit, but not that much difference.

Swing over to the F6 and you will find the opposite. 270fwkw is very very understated lets say.

Aus8

[rednut99]

Ford have understated most of there performance ranges, but I believe production tollerances and environmental conditions effect the outputs more so than the actual rating given by Ford.

It is generally considered (at least by us Ford folk) that both Turbos (XR6 and F6) are way underrated, with the 240kw sixes all pushing around the 200rwkw mark and the 270kw sixes coming very close to 240-250rwkw (although there have been far less F6 dyno results posted on the forums than XR6 ones so this could be a littel high and biassed, but with many A6 F6's pulling flat 13s it makes sense).

As for the 8s, well thats a different kettle of fish. I'm no expert, but the XR8 just isn't quick, it may be heavier but its not enough to make it that slow that is much 'less' powered brother can paste it form a stand still and in gear. Even with less torque (although more of it down low). But...

The GT or the BOSS290 has consistantly dyno'd at around the same or slightly higher rwkw than the LS2 (don't ask me why) which indicates that they are making more than 290kw. Its just a shame that there is enough wieght to hold them back and no where near enough midrange torque to stop an embarrissing loss to a well driven XR6T on a cold night or most well driven LS1 (certainly would waste your time in a LS2, would be like rasing an E-Gas falcon!!)

... And that doesn't take into acount DIN vs ECE from Ford vs Holden ratings!!

Why the hell did I right all that!?! :bawl: :lol:

[FPV GTHO]

Well back in '03 the '290 had a 3rwkw advantage over the C4B according to a Motor test. Taking in the 10fwkw difference and DIN/ECE thats close to 20kw difference.

[Sugaris]

how cares.. fords suck ass!!!

[Aus8]

how cares.. fords suck ass!!!

Some of us are Car enthusiasts mate and not loyal to one brand.

Aus8

[Souljah]

how cares.. fords suck ass!!!
Thank you for that intelligent comment. :stupid:

[Dacious]

Few years ago we had a class called 'Supermonos' in bike racing. Rules were simple: max of 1 fourstroke cylinder, six speed trans, two wheels and conform to general safety spec.

We saw all sorts of things coming out, mostly based on 250GP chassis with modified Italian, Austrian or Japanese SOHC/DOHC air or liquid cooled motors.

Guys went big bore, big stroke, high comp, mild cam, wild cam, carb, dual carb, FI/Motronic/Sagem, 500cc, 800cc you name it.

End of the day the most effective motors were probably Yammy Honda air-cooled carbed 650s with five speeds.

[duke5700]

Few years ago we had a class called 'Supermonos' in bike racing. Rules were simple: max of 1 fourstroke cylinder, six speed trans, two wheels and conform to general safety spec.

We saw all sorts of things coming out, mostly based on 250GP chassis with modified Italian, Austrian or Japanese SOHC/DOHC air or liquid cooled motors.

Guys went big bore, big stroke, high comp, mild cam, wild cam, carb, dual carb, FI/Motronic/Sagem, 500cc, 800cc you name it.

End of the day the most effective motors were probably Yammy Honda air-cooled carbed 650s with five speeds.

I could be silly for asking but what has this got to do with the price of milk? :hmmm:

[ratter]

The GT or the BOSS290 has consistantly dyno'd at around the same or slightly higher rwkw than the LS2 (don't ask me why) which indicates that they are making more than 290kw. Its just a shame that there is enough wieght to hold them back and no where near enough midrange torque to stop an embarrissing loss to a well driven XR6T on a cold night or most well driven LS1 (certainly would waste your time in a LS2, would be like rasing an E-Gas falcon!!)




I think some people are underestimating the 290, I know there are a few quick XR6T's but there are a few quick boss's also and some will show up quite a few LS1's and XR6t's also

[Dacious]

I could be silly for asking but what has this got to do with the price of milk? :hmmm:

Sorry, you're right. I meant to add:

When cylinder dimensions and especially stroke get very large, you can get lots of torque or twisting power - as per Kenworth or ocean liner engines but they don't rev very fast. As a high comp longstroke cylinder comes up to compression it suffers a lot of slowing with a light crank, or won't increase revs quickly with heavier crank. They produce great lugging power, but the reciprocating weight of the crank/rods and compression braking holds engine acceleration back compared to a motor with oversquare dimensions.

This is what the guys with 800cc mega-singles discovered. Past about 90mm stroke the engines were fast at the top end and pulled tall gearing, but slow off the turns. Overall for rideability and torque the slightly oversquare 650s were the quickest, even when down by 10ps at the back wheel.

And the aircooled SOHC singles were smaller, lighter and lower CoG thus the whole bike handled better.