Happy Birthday Barra! - Page 3

Syndrome · 05-12-2017, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trump

Kurac

Pizda.

Maka · 05-12-2017, 08:44 PM

But the key to the Falcon's later i6's impressive torque figures is the undersqare nature of the donk Mr Trump?

Would that destroke negatively affect the non stressed, v8 like torque feel of the stock configuration off the line, compared to a more oversquare shorter stroke engine, just wondering lol?

cheers, Maka

Trump · 05-12-2017, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maka

But the key to the Falcon's later i6's impressive torque figures is the undersqare nature of the donk Mr Trump?

Would that destroke negatively affect the non stressed, v8 like torque feel of the stock configuration off the line, compared to a more oversquare shorter stroke engine, just wondering lol?

cheers, Maka

The destroking would have brought it to pretty much square. That would have meant a higher redline; it would still have a long stroke. The net effect would have been more peak power, marginal increase in torque and a smoother engine.

Kieron · 06-12-2017, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trump

The destroking would have brought it to pretty much square. That would have meant a higher redline; it would still have a long stroke. The net effect would have been more peak power, marginal increase in torque and a smoother engine.

Problem is, torque would move up the rev range meaning more rpm and fuel consumption. Ford initially tried a DOHC 4 valver back in the 80’s on the 3.2 engine and found it was no better than the 3.9 SOHC 2 valver.

No doubt, if Ford though a squarer engine would be better, they would have gone for it.

Maka · 06-12-2017, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kieron

Problem is, torque would move up the rev range meaning more rpm and fuel consumption. Ford initially tried a DOHC 4 valver back in the 80’s on the 3.2 engine and found it was no better than the 3.9 SOHC 2 valver.

No doubt, if Ford though a squarer engine would be better, they would have gone for it.

Im curious to know if that early 4 valver had its stroke shortened, would you know Kieron?

cheers, Maka

malazn mafia · 06-12-2017, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAWITHLOT

So what was the Barra 220 code name?

Canadian Boat Anchor

malazn mafia · 06-12-2017, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syndrome

Pizda.

Dobro

marty351 · 06-12-2017, 01:48 PM

Puta madre!

commodorenutt · 06-12-2017, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I tend to agree with you on this. I think the Barra term was just carried over from BA by the public, but from what I can remember the internal codename for the engine was Orion, just like the FG was referred to in development. And at that stage the Barra engine was internally known as Copperhead due to the upgrades done for BF. Barra was used a lot through the whole life of the DOHC 6 but I don't recall Ford using the name officially for FG onwards. It's just that the public and the media still called it that.

Orion is all I ever knew it as from FG onwards - engine components we supplied, whether it be FG or SY/SZ, where called Orion in their description, but FGs also used Orion on things like the boot carpet labels & other trim items with a complex part sticker. I always figure plastic intake = Orion, but that doesn't account for the Turbo.

Just like the 2010 onwards 5.0L were all referred to as Miami, despite their Coyote origins. All the part descriptions featured that name.

Bossxr8 · 06-12-2017, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

image

Well the BA engine blocks had the Barra name cast into the block.
Would be interesting to see if the FG or FG X blocks have also carried it over.
If so, that would be conclusive proof.

Can anyone who has a hoist or wants to crawl under their car with a torch confirm this?

P.S. - My mate with his FG Ute definitely has a Barra.... He calls it the Wheelbarra

I have never seen a block with BARRA cast into it until I saw this pic. Production blokes never had this as far as I can remember. May be an early prototype?

BAWITHLOT · 06-12-2017, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

Canadian Boat Anchor

You must be a turbo driver!

roddy1960 · 06-12-2017, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trump

As good as it was, it needed an alloy block, forged crank and a mild destroke to 3.7 litres to be considered in the upper echelon of engines.

G'day , while all that sounds awesome in an ideal world, it's the fact that the I6 Barra became a genuinely beaut , reliable and exciting engine for us mere mortals .
The ability to see the performance , reliability and even economy out of it for affordable numbers from 2002-2016 is something that Ford Australia should be proud of in my book especially given the development constraints that would have been imposed on them as the Falcon and Territory marked dwindled.

Kieron · 07-12-2017, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maka

Im curious to know if that early 4 valver had its stroke shortened, would you know Kieron?

cheers, Maka

Yes mate, 79mm vs 99 for the 3.9. The 3.2 was actually available early in the EA’s in SOHC centre point injection configuration. There are a few pics around of this early DOHC, think I have a black and white one but I’m O/S at the moment so can’t access it.

**DFB FGXR6** · 07-12-2017, 08:40 PM

Trump · 07-12-2017, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

image

image

image

image

image

image

Where were those pics taken?

**DFB FGXR6** · 07-12-2017, 08:47 PM

Ford Discovery Centre in Geelong, circa 2012, just before they closed it all down.

**GO FURTHER** · 07-12-2017, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

Ford Discovery Centre in Geelong, circa 2012, just before they closed it all down.

Where did they finally move all the exhibits to?

Trump · 07-12-2017, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

Where did they finally move all the exhibits to?

Most of them are in storage. They were supposed to be housed here:

http://www.gmom.com.au/wp/

at their new site. However there is no news about if it will even reopen.

Bossxr8 · 08-12-2017, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

image

image

image

image

image

image

Interesting thing about that engine is the AU onwards style cast sump and EF onwards broadband manifold.

Nu66et · 08-12-2017, 03:00 PM

That 1987 engine is still 4L, not a 3.2L variant. Neither had VCT and any 3.2 variant may not havr had a BBM either. Both would make a big difference on the torque curve.

78xcgxl · 08-12-2017, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Interesting thing about that engine is the AU onwards style cast sump and EF onwards broadband manifold.

The manifold has a AU style part number. Odd for a prototype to have a part number on a manifold that was not in production for a decade later

hmmm

**DJM83** · 08-12-2017, 05:59 PM

Id love some more info on this engine, this stuff fascinates me.

**DFB FGXR6** · 08-12-2017, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Interesting thing about that engine is the AU onwards style cast sump and EF onwards broadband manifold.

That had me stumped as well.

I can only gather that maybe that the prototype head/block was topped with the manifold and sump to make it displayable.

That engine wasn't there in 2009 when I visited but was in 2012. Perhaps it was dusted off and dressed up for the museum?

malazn mafia · 09-12-2017, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAWITHLOT

You must be a turbo driver!

Nope, a proud owner of a turbo Barra and a supercharged 5.0 . However I fail to have any respect for the Canadian Ford V8s that Ford Australia used from 1991 to 2010, all of them were Canadian boat anchors that were easily embarrassed by an inline-6

Bossxr8 · 09-12-2017, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 78xcgxl

The manifold has a AU style part number. Odd for a prototype to have a part number on a manifold that was not in production for a decade later

hmmm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

That had me stumped as well.

I can only gather that maybe that the prototype head/block was topped with the manifold and sump to make it displayable.

That engine wasn't there in 2009 when I visited but was in 2012. Perhaps it was dusted off and dressed up for the museum?

Could very well be that they just threw a production piece on there cause there is no original manifold and sump left for it. And considering the time frame it's possible they grabbed one from the factory and put it on there to dress it up.

roddy1960 · 10-12-2017, 11:40 AM

G'day , The Barra is a physically big engine , even in displacement 3984 cc. is not small by any means . As they sit , fully dressed in standard form ie the XR6 T versus the XR8 SC , what's the difference in weight between the two engines ? . With the old 5.4 Boss 290 ,would that be any heavier compared to the 5.0 SC out of curiosity ? .
Remember watching a review when the FG came along and Toby Hagon ran the XR6 T , XR8 with 5.4 L V8 . Comparing the I6T v 5.4 V8 versions he mentioned the Turbo felt a better ,faster car maybe due to weight and balance etc issues perhaps . On the N/A Barra he reckoned the engine "no way feels like a base engine " . Here it is from almost a decade ago now if anybody hasn't seen it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xZFJvGwdx4&t=17s
Cheers Rod

Dr Smith · 15-12-2017, 10:33 AM

https://www.motormag.com.au/features...t-supercharged

Quote:

And so a new Aussie performance hero was born, with Barfield in particular confident it would be a success: “I named it ‘Gull’ (as in seagull), because we knew it was going to s**t on everything.”..

Imagine rolling up at Dearborn and explaining to the executive team that one.....only an Australian would even try

**DJM83** · 17-09-2022, 01:37 PM

So it seems around this month its 20 years since we got the XR6 Turbo.
Probably doesnt mean a lot to many. But its still as iconic now as it was IMHO.

EBSXR6 · 17-09-2022, 03:07 PM

When Ford began developing the 4 Valve head for the 6 Cylinder BMW and Jaguar were the only companies building larger capacity inline 6s with 4 valves per cylinder.
Ford owned Jaguar at the time so had access to their knowledge and i.p.
Ford Australia Engineering Department were also lent a BMW M5 by a Melbourne Dealer the engine was dismantled as part of the development process.
A bad design feature on the Barra, the Alternator should have been located above the Power Steering Pump.

Imagine if Ford had have built a block out of a lightweight metal.

**DJM83** · 17-09-2022, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EBSXR6

When Ford began developing the 4 Valve head for the 6 Cylinder BMW and Jaguar were the only companies building larger capacity inline 6s with 4 valves per cylinder.
Ford owned Jaguar at the time so had access to their knowledge and i.p.
Ford Australia Engineering Department were also lent a BMW M5 by a Melbourne Dealer the engine was dismantled as part of the development process.
A bad design feature on the Barra, the Alternator should have been located above the Power Steering Pump.

I know there is probably some folks on here that might possibly been involved in the development of the barra, in particular the turbo variant.
Id love to know some of the stuff behinds its development, im curious thats for sure.