falcon rtv

[fpv_gtho]

one of these would look pretty mad with the xr front end, ive laready seen a futura wagon with one. ford.com.au have a little movie clip of a couple of these doin things my dad wouldnt dream of doin in his 80 series landcruiser

[fpv_gtho]

heres a pic

[badboybarge]

looks like a monster truck!

badboy

[danno]

looks very nice. i wonder if somebody could photoshop a GT front on it.....

[fpv_gtho]

i doubt anyone could do one with the picture here, but maybe one from like a studio rather than on the road

[danno]

if you were from supercars.net you would know a few people who could certainly do it.

[fpv_gtho]

either way theres bound to be someone who will buy one and do it up like a pusuit ute, so there'll probably be real pictures of one floating around

[pato]

its just a ute with a jacked up suspension and its rear wheel drive at the moment so it couldnt match it with a proper four-wheeler of road like a ladcruiser or landrover or pajero

[fpv_gtho]

uhh ford never intended for it to be a competitor to other 4x4's, they produced it because the normal falcon ute sits lower to the ground than the jap competitors because of its car base, so they produced this for people who wanted a car based light truck and needed to jump across the odd rock. ford may well still produce a 4x4 version of this car, the 4x4 hardware and virtual pivot front suspension all fit under the ba sedan shell so theres no reason why it shouldnt fit on the ute

[pato]

Originally posted by fpv_gtho
one of these would look pretty mad with the xr front end, ive laready seen a futura wagon with one. ford.com.au have a little movie clip of a couple of these doin things my dad wouldnt dream of doin in his 80 series landcruiser

i was just talking about its 4x4 capabilities because of ur comment above

[fpv_gtho]

my comment was based on something ive seen them doing though. i showed it too my dad and he said he ould do that in his toyota cressida

[pato]

good luck to him - its a passenger vehicle not a 4x4

[fpv_gtho]

many people dont let the hardware of a car hold them back

[pato]

the repair bill might tho

[fpv_gtho]

well if anyones pushing there car to the point high cost items are breaking, they deserve the bill

[pato]

well i dont know why anyone would pay for this car cause the could just jack up the suspension in their own BA ute and it will be almost the same

[fpv_gtho]

well to option up a falcon ute aftermarket like this, it would cost more through more expensive parts and extra labour. in the end if this is the type of vehicle your looking for, its easiest and most likely cheapest to get it off ford. ford obviously think they can sell them so good luck to them. i know my dads falcon one tonner as a 3 seater is pretty comfortable, especially compared to jap 3 seaters. the only time ive been uncomfortable was on a 1.5hour drive me, my dad and my brother went on

[LowRider]

I know its a 4WD but come on its not a Jackaroo or Forester, does it have to be that jacked up?

[pato]

its not a 4WD its a 2WD

[Falcon500]

It has a diff specifcly built for the car and its was based on the highly succseful EF EL outback series of utes. This ute also give trademen an advantage as extra ground clearance is nice (epecially when moving briicks and bags of cement and stuff) and it doent cost the wad a jackeroo or a forester does and it also has the same reapare costs on the enteir car (minus a few supsension compenats and the diff) as the falcon range which is cheapest in its class.

[fpv_gtho]

Originally posted by LowRider
I know its a 4WD but come on its not a Jackaroo or Forester, does it have to be that jacked up?

even if it was a 4wd, why compare it to a forestor or jackaroo? its a ute, not a wagon

[Falcon500]

Also true they dont really stack up comapring the 2 and also there arnt a lot of 6 powerd 2wd utes that would drive like car out there either nor is there any that will take the punishment of going off road the car really is a nice compramise.

[fpv_gtho]

like you said, holden and ford have their share of niche markets now: Ford with the RTV and Holden with the Crewman. Both are targeted at japs though. its possible for ford to develop a 4WD RTV though, theyve got test cars with the virtual pivot front suspension to house the front axle so its not like it doesnt fit. they might be experiencing real life durability issues with it under a falcon rather then the territory though

[Falcon500]

Well it seems a natural step to make a 4wd version id also like to see a turbo version and a boss engine one also. Well in about 2 years well see if either of these projects are succsesfull.

[fpv_gtho]

i dont like the chances of getting a BOSS engined version considering the base cars target buyer but if they want to make a 4wd version they could put the turbo 6 in cause the barra220 doesnt fit, or probably more accurately, ford havent made it fit yet

[Falcon500]

well the barra 220 is on the books for the car yopu can order it with 2wd i was hoping for a 2wd with a boss engine.

[fpv_gtho]

well if they did decide to make a boss engined RTV it would be a similar philosophy to whats behind the avalanche

[Falcon500]

Except no where near as heavy.

[fpv_gtho]

well it would be close to 100kg heavier than the standard 6 RTV or worse. ford wouldnt stop at just the engine and go right to the bodykit and everything else that gets put on say an XR8 ute, and they weight over 1800kg

[Falcon500]

This is why i think ford should bring back GS models Boss engines in an XT the idea behind the GS was a poor mans GT it had a flash stering wheel diffrent colour scemes in interior very undefined stripes and a GT engine (in this case the XR8 motor would be the equivelent as the GT wasnt to top model then)

[fpv_gtho]

well 30 years back, ford had their falcon 500, falcon gs and falcon gt. now theyve got an xr6t, xr8 and fpv gt, so the models are still practically there

[Falcon500]

well the flacon 500 was basicly the XT in all honesty.

[fpv_gtho]

so were the first XR's. but that was 11 years ago, and the XR8's are now closer packaged to a V8 Futura than a V8 XT

[Falcon500]

I was only saying the Falcon 500 was more like the XT and to a lesser extent the XR6 they also came out with the 2v head on the 6.

[fpv_gtho]

well thers been rumours that ford are guna release an entry level v8 sports sedan under the XR8, similar to the sv8 and what the falcon 500 was

[Falcon500]

Thats what im talking about an entry level XR8 "like" Vehical all they need now is some slight imporvement on the XR6 engine ways you buy the more sporty model and all you get is spots suspnsion i think a little more poke is in order.

[fpv_gtho]

well theres still a fair bot of play in the VCT and other developments to the head that can be done, like intake flow and such so 182kw's not the limit. im wondering whether an entry level xr8 would share the boss260 like the sv8 and ss commodore do, or would get like a tuned barra v8 that could be shared with the fairlane g220. they should make the G220 have the XR8 engine to keep up with the caprice. how does a fairlane G260, fairmont G260 and falcon G260 sound? entry level XR8, higher power fairlane and a SWB luxo barge

[Falcon500]

Well there both very sound ideas as i said say a 200 kw or 195 kw XR6 engine would be nice but i hope the entery level xr8 would have the xr8 motor.

[fpv_gtho]

ive had a better idea for a base level XR8, rather than G260 call it X260 cause that keeps with the X link in XT and XR, plus, i dont see no falcon ghia like in the fairmont and fairlane ranges

[Falcon500]

I still like GS

[fpv_gtho]

ford wouldnt use GS though as too many enthusiasts would complain that it sat under the GT, and the XR8 does that now

[Falcon500]

well the GS was a grss rots gt it had fairmont interior no other mod cons and a gt engine i think they could mange it would be sort of like GT=gtho XR8=GT GS=GS but if you dont agree i cant change that.

[fpv_gtho]

well thats thinking of it as the 3rd V8 model, but what if ford decides to introduce a BA gtho, that kinda puts the thinking behind that out of whack

[Falcon500]

No it will basicly bring it back to the origoanl thinking GTHO=GTHO GT=GT xr8=GXL,Farimont GT etc (and all otrher various models) and GS=GS

[fpv_gtho]

well the only problem ford would have with going back to that would be that they would have to stick the fairmont interior back into the GT which i can see them doing now that the clubsport has the berlina interior. youve always been saying or infering the GS was a base line GT, yet there youve put the GXL imbetween them

[crisis]

This here RTV thing is about the most intelligent ute concept I have seen. raise the suspension and give it a rear diff lock.I would imagine this thing going as far if not further than some of the softroaders out there without having to be seen as a four wheel drive.

[Falcon500]

The GXL was the top model in the XC lineup for a while but it was definetly no GT it was a lot softer and a lot slower it was more luxurious then it was sporty. The XB gs if you got the 351 in it was just as fast as the GT model and faster then the XC GXL the idea behind the GS was farimont interior the GT stering wheel flash gauges GT engine and not much else everything else was an option including radio a/c etc.
The crewman isnt such a bad idea either its making use of somthing that some ute owenrs might want (though i would like a ute so i DONT have to give anyone a lift) But ford previously has sold a model like that with pretty good sucsess the EL Longreach "outback" ute and they also guaged the public intrest in the AU "mongrel" ute so it seems like it will be a sucsess "seems" i prsonlly like it but the XR8 motor or a turbo option surely wouldent go astary.

[fpv_gtho]

well the GXL and ESP ended up replacing the GT in the falcon lineup for XC and XD, but im a little worried about the structural strength of the crewman. ive heard that they come off the production lines as statesmans before having the front end replaced with that of the ute and the rear section replaced with that of the one tonner, but the idea of it sounds a bit too bodgy

[Falcon500]

So the car doest have a full chassis then? that doesnt sound like a good idea itll be interesting to see if its the VB all over again also from what i hear there are no v6s avaible yet and no manuakls avialbe yet their all genIII autos which would put a damper on sales for the moment.

[fpv_gtho]

the falcon ute/cab chassis, holden one tonner, crewman and cross8 all use a hybrid chassis design, the holden ute being fully monocoque. the crewman comes in V6 and V8, auto and manual, but its the Cross8 and adventra that only come in auto V8

[crisis]

Originally posted by Falcon500
So the car doest have a full chassis then? that doesnt sound like a good idea itll be interesting to see if its the VB all over again also from what i hear there are no v6s avaible yet and no manuakls avialbe yet their all genIII autos which would put a damper on sales for the moment.
I dont think any current utes have a full chassis.

[fpv_gtho]

well i dunno about any of the jap imports, but the closest thing to a ute with a seperate box chassis is the likes of the patrol cab chassis and landcruiser 75 series

[crisis]

Originally posted by fpv_gtho
well i dunno about any of the jap imports, but the closest thing to a ute with a seperate box chassis is the likes of the patrol cab chassis and landcruiser 75 series
I meant to mention those and the likes of 4runners and tritons etc.

[fpv_gtho]

well i dont think it will be long before the likes of the hilux's and tritons go to a hybrid chassis

[Falcon500]

I think (i dont righly know) but i think the flacon tes have a proper chassis and i think the hilux will be around for a good while longer itll be a hard vehical to replace.

[crisis]

Falcons do not have a full chassis. I dont think Ford has used one of these , other than in a F150 or Explorer, for a long time.

[fpv_gtho]

falcon utes definately dont have a full, seperate chassis. theyve intergrated the monocoque chassis with a seperate box section chassis in the floorplan and holden took it one step further by putting a support brace of some sort up the back of the cabin, although theyre only claiming 100kg higher GVM

[Falcon500]

oh fair enough i thought they might of but obviuasly i was wrong it seems that these new metods cant hold as much as a full chassi.

[fpv_gtho]

well i wouldnt exactly say that. the way i see it they give a fairly good compromise between car like dynamics and those of a workhorse. a seperate chassis ute would be able to take more but would the tires? would the engine be able to move the car?

[Falcon500]

the tyers is a good point. But the engine should be able to move it hell the 200 cube 6 in the lower grade version of the XY flacon easily moved it and then pently more.

[fpv_gtho]

its all really a matter of the torque spread. peak torque doesnt mean shit when your carrying something and older engines ive found tend to be more torquey low in the rev range. i know the 300 cu. in. straight six in my dads f250 pulls a 3T load alright but it strugles to get any decent sort of speed

[Falcon500]

Yuoll also find the 300 cube 6 would be a very tourqey motor in the f250 would have a very good tourqe spread but the f100 ranger pack with the 460 would pull 3t very comfterbly. Youll find that the carbed engines have more low down but fuel injected motors it happens a bit faster.

[fpv_gtho]

well my dad originally wanted to put a 460 in the truck when he changed it from an f100 to an f250 but decided to keep the original engine cause the 460, not only wasting fuel, but wouldnt of been a good workhorse engine

[Falcon500]

I perosnally would of used a 302 or 351 Windsor their good on fuel (suprisingly good in fuel injected form in 80s models f100s) and they would of increased the poke some what.

[fpv_gtho]

well the typical setup is a dual fuel 351 and my dad had a dual carb gas system to put on the 460 but i think he was used to the 300 so he stuck with it, plus i doubt he wanted to go looking for another decent condition engine, plus he was after the simplicity of carbs

[Falcon500]

Thats all fair enough i was just giving my personal account id rather carbs but ive seen the fuel injected ones get 20mpg which for sotmthing so heavy is fantastic. Never ghad much to do with the 300 6 i know their a canadian engine and im certian they arnt to dissimilar to the non cross flow engine ive currently got in my falcon.

[fpv_gtho]

well i wouldnt be surpruised to see a relationship between the 3.3, 4.1 and 4.9 6's like there is between the 4.7, 4.9 and 5.8. i know my dad finds parts for it without much trouble, but the dual carb gas 460 my dad had, he pulled it out of an XF ute that was gunna become a drag car

[crisis]

Originally posted by fpv_gtho
well the typical setup is a dual fuel 351 and my dad had a dual carb gas system to put on the 460 but i think he was used to the 300 so he stuck with it, plus i doubt he wanted to go looking for another decent condition engine, plus he was after the simplicity of carbs
I dont rekon theres anyhting too simple about dual carbs. Fuel injection is the simplest and most efficient way to run an engine. Turn the switch and no matter how hot or cold it is it starts. Fuel efficiency is better as is power. A big Predator or a brace of Dellortos might look cool but for driveability ive me an injection any day.

[fpv_gtho]

well especially for my dads generation, its easier to work around a carb setup than a fuel injected setup, as ive found people of my dads age like to be able to play around with the engine a bit without any mechanical knowledge

[Falcon500]

carbies are much easier to set up fuel injection is a pain in the arse to set up. And my old mans set up for the datsun dual webbers and gets 41 mpg (9l?per 100km somthing like that) but the motor is set up to be very tempramental and makes 80 somthing hp takes preactice to take off with out lighting up.

[fpv_gtho]

80hp and 9l/l00km dont sound all that impressive but put them and datsun in the same sentence and the fuel consumption is probably a tad on the thirsty side and the powers pretty good

[Tsar]

Hi All.. my first post here found the forum while hunting about for car info, and noticed the RTV thread and thought i would try to help out with some info, cheers

The RTV is designed to tackle the similar Jap utes head on . IE:- the 4x2 Hilux high ride ute and its various other cousins from differant manufacturer's, it also carries from 10mm-30mm more ground clearance than any of its direct competitors. These utes are typically used by trademen using it over rough terrain, that does not require 4x4 or the expense of it either. But also fall into the "yuppie" catorgory" of "I have smick ute but it never gets dirty type" or as some call it "street cred"

The suspension is more than just jacked up, they have had to changed quite a number of steering components as well,, lower & Upper control arms-steering shaft- wider track-differant steering box to cope with the wider track- under body protection for sump, gearbox and drive shaft- shocky sheilds to help bounce off any rocks or other,--sway bars- and a few other little bibs and bobs along the way like the diff locker.

The control pivot system can be fitted to the RTV, with a great deal of constanance, but is not designed for a serious 4x4. mainly the advent of the Territory.

Hope this helps

[fpv_gtho]

thats a fair bit of effort put in there, but the underbody protection doesnt extend to the driveshaft. ford also put some sort of anti tramp device on the rear suspension to tame it down a bit, which i think should be added to all of thier utes. the latest wheels mag has a test drive of a V8 RTV and seriously they didnt have a bad thing to say about it, to a certain degree. they had their usual comments about the leaf sprung rear end but it was mainly positive

[Falcon500]

80hp is not that much but from a 1200 thats not bad most econo cars nowdays only mange 100 odd hp out of a fuel injected dohc 1600 of course thats all they need. And its not exactly the power rating its how it gos about it as i said this motor is most certioanly tempramental really likes to squeal off the line if you dont get it perfect (which my old man has down to an artform) it is also an engine that waould of been quite competative in rallys in the 70s very active but the srange thing is and my old man attributes this to the cam and the big twin webbers it doesnt like full throttle under 3000 rpm if you do it stutters and stuggles a little bit untill it winds up also the cars 600 od kilos so it makes full use of its power and were experamenting with a turbo charged 1400 as well.

[fpv_gtho]

well the 1400 should be fun, i know a friend of my mums is putting a turbo nissan motor in a 1200 coupe and theres been a bit cut out of the front to fit the motor in

[Falcon500]

Well were going to use the pushrod datsun A 1400 with a mitsubishi Cortia turbo and it will more then likely use a suck through singel webber as its carbie. All that and im trying to convince dad its a good idea to give it a 40 thou overbore and work the heads and give the cam a little tidy up and some very free flowing exaust...

[fpv_gtho]

ahh the wonders of tuning an old engine: chich anything on you want from any car, these days if its not correctly programmed with the ecu or matched to the engine it either wont start or something like the engine will seriously ping

[Falcon500]

Thats the real problem with all computerised shit one little mistake in the mapping and what not and it aint going nowhere or itll ping

[crisis]

Actually the knock sensors in the engine management systems make it highly unlikely that an engine will ping. It requires serious training to remap a computer but so to tuning multiple carbies. And you can generally only tune them to perform at their optimum within a tight performance envelope. ie run well flat out but idle like a pig.

[fpv_gtho]

well im pretty sure an XF 4.1L X-flow EFI doesnt have any knock sensors so ud have to be careful when playing around with the EEC-IV management. most people would probably thinkg more of a mechanical knowledge would be needed to improve and play around with carby's and computer knowledge would be needed for EFI.

[Falcon500]

The other hard paart about remapping EFI is the equipment you need to do it it coupled with skill while carbies only need basic tools and some good old fashioned know how (or a hell of a lot of fiddling) same with the injected VK commadores they also lack knock sensors.

[fpv_gtho]

well i wouldnt be surprised to see the EA 3.9 and 3.2 without knock sensors, the 3.2 had some funny efi/carby combo and the 3.9 ran single point EFI

[Falcon500]

well the kiwis got their EAs with fuel injected 4.1s
Ive never seen a 3.2 but by the sounds of it they were using a carbie as the throttle body basicly a computer controlled carbie ground breaking stuff in the late 70s.

[fpv_gtho]

well it wasnt good enough to last in the falcon, the 4.1 X-flow efi wouldve had power to rival a 3.9 SPI, i think when the XF went unleaded, the top spec 4.1 was the only engine to gain power in the falcon lineup.

[Falcon500]

The fuel injected on had around 112 kw and the carbied one (single down draft webber) was 90 (odd) kw the gas ones only had like 80kw also they were good motors they fixed a lot of the problems with the old iron head X-flow and they just go! near impossible to kill.

[fpv_gtho]

the alloy head efi 4.1L went from 120kw to 121kw and 333nm to 325nm, the carby, alloy head 4.1 went from 103kw to 97.5kw and torque stayed at 316nm, the 3.3L went from 90kw to 88kw and 240nm to 235nm but all the efi engines had considerably lower compression ratios: the efi 4.1 went from 8.8:1 to 8.7:1, the carby 4.1 went from 9.35:1 to 8.77:1 and the 3.3 went from 9.15:1 to 8.66:1

[Falcon500]

Ok fair enough im just repeating what a iread in the manual for my mates XF the iron heads were not very poweful at all i tell you nearly all of the at 90kw.

[fpv_gtho]

well with the gains ford made you'd think holden wouldve gone down a similar path, the ecotec is still all iron

[Falcon500]

Well while aluminium offers better fuel atomization (or so ive been told) and does take a fair bit of weightoff it the material is more costly and can warp more easily.There inst really anything wrong with the current heads on the engine they are stillperforming ok and with their replacement pending it doesnt sound proiftable to design some new alloy heads for it now when they weill ditch the engine in the next few years.

[fpv_gtho]

well another thing will alluminium heads on an old engine, i think theyre prone to overheat easier. i know the AU fairmont my dad has, he's noticed it gets in the red a bit more temperature wise cause of the alluminium heads compared to the old iron heads ford used to fit

[Falcon500]

well at a stand still the heads will cool down faster also working in conjuction with the alloy radiators these cars have. But thats one of the trade offs you have to put up with when using alloy heads.

[fpv_gtho]

well the good side then, less top weight, downside, easier overheating. i actually saw a picture of a 4.6 block and 4.9 block side by side and the size difference is massive. i dont think i wanna see the difference with the 5.4 in there!! i heard on ford australia forums, that the MOD family of V8's was originally intended to be used in FWD applications, so thats why they made it such a tall engine or something. doesnt really make sense if you ask me, the 302 wouldve gone better as a fwd v8 than the MOD

[Falcon500]

From what i hear the 5.4 is exactly the same size but heres one of the big queastions was it just the block or was it a long block? youll find with heads there would be a massive diffrence as well.
I dont know about the mod family used in fwd but the windsor was old hat by then old technology by then why bother with somthing thats ageing and no good no more? there was nothing wrong with the windsor their great engines but in a new car youd expect somthing a little more technologicly advanced then old push rods wouldent you?

[fpv_gtho]

well i think the 5.4, like the 5.8 has a taller block to deal with the longer stroke but the picture i saw did have the heads which made most of the difference, but a careful eye could see there was still distinct size differences in just the block, the 4.6 overall was just fat. the 302 overall was a great engine but ford america shouldve started to update the drivetrain around when the mustang GT returned, back in the 80's. the idea though of making a V8 block bigger for FWD sounds like reverse logic though when you consider it still has to sit on the transaxle

[Falcon500]

Well theyproblytried to limit the bulkyness of this new motor by making it as tall as possible toreduce its width to give it a bit more roomto work around fortransaxel and suspension. Im no exbert on OHC but if you put the pre X-flow ive got in my falcon to a BA DOHC it would probly look tiny it already looks kind of small to an X-flow with its real skinnyrocker cover and tighly packed head.

[fpv_gtho]

well your probably right, ive seen the engine bay of an XR8 and GT, and it looks as if the engine sits on the engine bay rather than in the engine bay

[Falcon500]

Well thats all thanks to the engine hardly fitting in the engine bay i also doubt well see any BAs with chrome rocker covers for that same reason that you need that unmarable paint to squeaze it in the engine bay

P.s im really bloody drunk now so please excuse any spelling mistakes or any dribble im might come out with.

[fpv_gtho]

i thought it was just some tape they put over the cam covers to wiggle the engines in easier, but chrome cam covers that big i dont think would look that good, not on a DOHC motor, it would looked too riced

[Falcon500]

Well thats all possible but were never gonna know untill we see some and with how much harder it will be it might take a bit longer.

[fpv_gtho]

we'd be more likely to see an XR6T with a chrome cam cover, although for a turbo, its not getting all that much attention from ricers which can only be a good thing

[Falcon500]

Well the reason they arnt being targeted yet is their not cheap give them a decade....

[fpv_gtho]

theyre at worst $2000 more than a standard WRX with a whole lot more car so theyre not out of the price range for ricers. drive down parramatta road in sydney and have a look at some of the jap import dealerships and theyre trying to sell GTS-T skylines for $50K and 5 year old GTR's for aboput $80000.

[Falcon500]

Well the thing that attracts most ricers tosmallhatch backs and shitare the fact their cheap but when they put all that gay assed bling bling shit on it (or street style as one ofmy mates called it we just call it being wogged) they wouldof been better off buying that subaru WRX 96 they were looking at rather then tarting up a honda civic.
And for our more grown up ricers the kind who are claimedto be litening to old skool techno (which there is no such thing the shit aint even old enough yet) who have proper jobs and arnt sponging off theirparents they can get into huge debt and get a skyline. Its amazing the prices they can get for skyline alternativly the prices for GTOs are very high also due to how uncommon they are here supras seem to be the better buy here cheaper then a skyline and GTO and still reasonbly uncommon.

[fpv_gtho]

the stupid thing is a 4 year old skyline GTR N-1 or mitsubishi GTO VR-4 wouldnt sell for the equivalent of $10,000 in Japan and here people are forking out over $100,000 at times for a decent working one

[Falcon500]

Well that is helped by the grey import laws limiting the ammount alloud intot the country it limits the number making them rarer meaning for the small(ish) ammount of supply and demand means really high prices like as i said before i would love a supra it would make a great day to day commuter.

[fpv_gtho]

well i wouldnt personally go as far as to use a supra as a day to day commuter, id leave that to a basic XT falcon if need be but the over inflated prices of these sorts of cars (supra's, skyline's, GTO's) is also reflected in the cost of tuning them as you need to import parts from japan that are already too expensive. could be worse i guess, you could be trying to tune up an american muscle car a year ago with the 50c australian dollar

[Falcon500]

Well the one i was refering too was a 94 model i saw for 14k it was in very good condition turbocharged 5 speed model not bad at all ive seen higher prices for v6 commadores. As for turning i would only really limit that to some exaust prehaps some head work, mayby upping the boost to stock from from japan (they lower it because of import reasons) prehaps an intercooler and all the real simple shit i dont want a mosnter to drive around in but on the other hand ill try and make it as fun as possible.

[fpv_gtho]

well that doesnt really sound like simple stuff, maybe simple to get a hold of but theres some serious power gainst to be obtained from all that. get into the ECU and you could make the boost anywhere from 1psi to about 30

[Falcon500]

They can be as serious as you plan to make it yes these motors are very touchy and will react well to these mods but keeping them quite mild will not only glean more HP but if driven senably will offer better fuel ecconmy. And as for the Boost they lower it from the stock 9lbs to 6lbs for some reason when they import them i wouldonly simply return that to stock.

[fpv_gtho]

well a stock 9lbs boost supra wouldnt be comsidered driveable on a daily basis, some people reckon a 6psi XR6T isnt drivable on a daily basis. at to that all the basic mods and it gets worse

[Falcon500]

Well many people didnt think his 1000 being tuned by the local rallyace wouldbe goos as a dayly driver its obtuse to drive at times but nothing you cant get used too and withcomputers and stuff it its properly set up will more then liekly be more driveable then that 1000.

[fpv_gtho]

well you might be able to set different drivability modes into the ECU like ford do with shifting patterns for the BTR auto they use, but getting it doen right could cost money your not prepared to spend

[Falcon500]

Yeah true but at worst the car will be a bit of a bitch all the modern crap on it will make it a little more practical then a small 1200 with gaint twin carbies and a really lumpy cam and a light flywheel. More then likely a hell of a lot faster too.

[fpv_gtho]

well with a good ECU and turbo, it should be no trouble at all to go faster than a 1200

[Falcon500]

nonon we were tlaking about drivability of this motorcompared to abitch of a 1200 with an ecu and all that shit even if itsharder to drive im just saying it couldent be as hard as the 1200 in the 1000.

[fpv_gtho]

well the 1200 in a 1000 isnt that big a step, people out there drive around in 1200's with nissan 16V turbo motors in there, one of my mums friends is trying to get one running

[Falcon500]

your missing the point this engine is set up for rallies not dayly driving. ive seen a stanza with a sr20det engine in it totally stock which is faster but being stock it still maintians its driveability.