VCT vs HP

Pik0 · 31-03-2005, 11:18 PM

Just wondering what the power output on the VCT and HP are standard, cause im looking for at buying a AU but i want a VCT and some ppl are just saying 172kW and i dont know if thats the VCT or HP engine

Sylox · 31-03-2005, 11:22 PM

thats the vct

phillyc · 31-03-2005, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pik0

Just wondering what the power output on the VCT and HP are standard, cause im looking for at buying a AU but i want a VCT and some ppl are just saying 172kW and i dont know if thats the VCT or HP engine

Just bought VCT 5weeks ago. Fantastic car. Its an AU1 1999 VCT Auto, factory 17s, Red in colour with 49500 klms on the clock. The main benefit of the VCT model is the smoothness/willingness of engine and the Double Wishbone IRS (not on HP). The powerdown is awesome. The downside is approx 80kg heavier. But GREAT handling.

VCT
Power : 172kW @ 5000rpm
Torque : 374Nm @ 3500rpm

HP
Power : 164kW @ 5000rpm
Torque : 366Nm @ 3150-3500rpm

loxxr6 · 31-03-2005, 11:54 PM

164kw normal (HP)
172kw VCT

....beat me to listing the figures.

At this stage the non VCT car is the easier to mod in so far as getting cams etc to work.

This may soon change if we get the AU edit.

GK · 31-03-2005, 11:59 PM

Pardon my ignorance fellas, but what does HP stand for? I know VCT is variable cam timing.

Also what are the main technical differences between the HP and VCT? Is it basically just the variable timing gear or other goodies as well?

George

**Stav** · 01-04-2005, 01:02 AM

hp= high performance

kiwikid · 01-04-2005, 01:04 AM

yet the VCT has more KW..
how does that work?

**Stav** · 01-04-2005, 01:11 AM

The vct cam has simliar lift to the hp au cam.However the variable cam timing can retard and advance cam timing to creat more power.Also consider that they put out from memory less rwkws than fwkws

MickyB · 01-04-2005, 01:26 AM

Well I assume Ford wanted to use the VCT as a major selling point, hence 'VCT', and compared to the standard Intech 6, the XR6 HP is indeed 'high performance'.
Useless what do you mean less rwkw than fwkw? Me confused

Dark Horse · 01-04-2005, 01:20 PM

Open up the bonnet and you will clearly see which car is which. The VCT head is labelled accordingly and has diagonal polished stripes across the top.

Casper · 01-04-2005, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 99 Futura Wagon

Also what are the main technical differences between the HP and VCT? Is it basically just the variable timing gear or other goodies as well?

George

Its just the Head and VCT mechanism. The block and everything else is the same on all the AU I6 engines.

**Polyal** · 01-04-2005, 01:44 PM

I can tell you for a fact that the HP had to be toned down to make the VCT look superior. Not taking anything away from the VCT, but the HP is not a bad thing either.

Casper · 01-04-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polyal

I can tell you for a fact that the HP had to be toned down to make the VCT look superior. Not taking anything away from the VCT, but the HP is not a bad thing either.

Hate to tell you that the VCT was grossly toned down too. It had to be as the AU XR8 at the time was only putting out 185kw. The VCT is, with an ECU override, capable of similar numbers. We had a good hard look at the ECU on mine during the chip challenge and it was appauling how much it was hobbled.

**Polyal** · 01-04-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Hate to tell you that the VCT was grossly toned down too. It had to be as the AU XR8 at the time was only putting out 185kw. The VCT is, with an ECU override, capable of similar numbers. We had a good hard look at the ECU on mine during the chip challenge and it was appauling how much it was hobbled.

Yeap thats a fair enough call. Im not going to start name dropping but I work with a guy how designed them, and at the time the HP was reading higher with only cam differentiation.

Its all histroy now, and both cars a quite capable of more, but without touching the ecu, which is one of the more expensive mods; the HP is not a bad thing.

Casper · 01-04-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polyal

Yeap thats a fair enough call. Im not going to start name dropping but I work with a guy how designed them, and at the time the HP was reading higher with only cam differentiation.

Its all histroy now, and both cars a quite capable of more, but without touching the ecu, which is one of the more expensive mods; the HP is not a bad thing.

Truth is they were both probably hobbled in a big way to stop them from being more powerful than the XR8 of the time.
Somehow I find it hard to believe that the HP was only good for 164kw. I know the VCT was certainly good for a lot more than 172kw.

Pik0 · 01-04-2005, 02:43 PM

bit OT but what are the differences between series 1 and series 2 xr6's cause if found i can get a series 2 bodykit on a series 1 but what (if any) are the mechanical changes?

DivHunter · 01-04-2005, 02:55 PM

Umm it's not like the 185kW was as hard as the 5L could go either...

The power figures are always a reflection of their economical balance at the time of design and manufacture.

Casper · 01-04-2005, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairmont99

Umm it's not like the 185kW was as hard as the 5L could go either...

The power figures are always a reflection of their economical balance at the time of design and manufacture.

The 5.0l showed itself good for 220kw in the end but to do so it was becoming more of a hand built item (thats why they were signed).
Off the production line, based on the parts they had, they were starting to top out. The I6 had, on average, more "in reserve" potential than the V8 had in as a factory production run engine.
Id say this was as much to do with the impending death of the 5.0l as anything though. I'm sure Ford would have loved to not have had to produce the 200, 220 and 250kw V8 Windsors.

sbutler · 01-04-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

I'm sure Ford would have loved to not have had to produce the 200, 220 and 250kw V8 Windsors.

But were glad they did!!

Casper · 01-04-2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbutler

But were glad they did!!

bloody oath, they were the best ones!

GK · 01-04-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Its just the Head and VCT mechanism. The block and everything else is the same on all the AU I6 engines.

Ok, so the head on the VCT is shaved or whatever? What are the compression ratios of each? Actually, that's a lazy question, let me grab my owner's manual. (fetches manual)

Righto, all have 9.65:1.

Power figures are quoted as.
157kw HO164 VCT168 XR6 VCT172

This sound about right everyone. I wonder what the figures were in the real world and how much difference could be seen between say 5 VCTs or 5 HOs. Anyone have an idea?

Here's something though, no mention of HP high performance, just HO high output. These are the same yeah?

Casper · 01-04-2005, 07:41 PM

I suspect the AU1 VCT head had closer to a 9.30:1 compression ratio. This was fixed in the AU2 and 3 VCTs. I think it was a design fault in the head. Turns out that most AU2/3 VCT's have more power than the AU1 VCT due to this. This has been proved consistantly with dyno runs showing the later VCT's with more power.

TCK-098 · 01-04-2005, 10:24 PM

so if the vct can be fiddled to produce more power what are the pro's and con's

just curious as i kepp hearing differant things and thats why i havnt done much to mine YET

Casper · 01-04-2005, 11:31 PM

The VCT responds exceptiopnally well to a chip of some kind, be it unichip or chiptorque. Even better with a decent exhaust and intake. No cons at all.

Dark Horse · 02-04-2005, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 99 Futura Wagon

Ok, so the head on the VCT is shaved or whatever? What are the compression ratios of each? Actually, that's a lazy question, let me grab my owner's manual. (fetches manual)

Righto, all have 9.65:1.

Power figures are quoted as.
157kw HO164 VCT168 XR6 VCT172

This sound about right everyone. I wonder what the figures were in the real world and how much difference could be seen between say 5 VCTs or 5 HOs. Anyone have an idea?

Here's something though, no mention of HP high performance, just HO high output. These are the same yeah?

High Output refers to the engine, High Performance refers to the actual differentiation of the car itself.

I'm of the opinion that the 164 kW and 172 kW were the figures that Ford used as the minimum 'official' outputs, my hunch is that some of the production XR6's were actually putting out a bit more than that. There is definitely going to be some variation in ouputs across all the cars, being typically mass produced.

GK · 02-04-2005, 03:45 PM

Ok, thanks for clearing that one up.

Mark351 · 02-04-2005, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Truth is they were both probably hobbled in a big way to stop them from being more powerful than the XR8 of the time.
Somehow I find it hard to believe that the HP was only good for 164kw. I know the VCT was certainly good for a lot more than 172kw.

However, the HP got the Forte exhaust, and the VCT got a better system which was one way they justified the power difference.

Of two, Herrod picked the HP version to kit up for Targa duty. Darryl Coon did likewise for racing in Australian Production Car.

HP's are lighter (no IRS) and make a better track weapon (hell, V8 Supercars still run live axles...) but that IRS was a very nice piece of gear on the road.

Casper · 02-04-2005, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathXR

However, the HP got the Forte exhaust, and the VCT got a better system which was one way they justified the power difference.

True, the VCT got a different and slightly better exhaust system but from the cat forward was identical to the HP/Forte. Same horrible manifold and little pipe. Adding a cat back exhaust may have freed up a few kw, but not much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathXR

Of two, Herrod picked the HP version to kit up for Targa duty. Darryl Coon did likewise for racing in Australian Production Car.

HP's are lighter (no IRS) and make a better track weapon (hell, V8 Supercars still run live axles...) but that IRS was a very nice piece of gear on the road.

The HP was the quicker car of the 2, no doubt about it. Still is. It also is easier to modify and has far more options for getting big power.
All I'm saying is that the VCT is also a very good engine and, combined with the IRS and a few little luxuries, makes for an excellent daily driver. It can also go a lot harder than many people thought it could for what is a relativly small amount of money.
I'm afraid the VCT is far less of a "grandpa's XR6" than many people would have thought a few years ago.

old_mate · 03-04-2005, 02:24 AM

is it true the VCT though likes to drink a little more juice than the HP motor?

MickyB · 03-04-2005, 02:32 AM

Casper do you know of any dyno results with pacemaker 4499's on the XR6 VCT? My dad has one with those extractors, K&N filter, and XR8 intake, we were wondering what his next mod should be, should he change extractors, or perhaps fit a chiptorque, or unichip chip?