Ecoboost Falcon review....well kind of

[Brazen]

They load up Ecoboost Mondeo to Falcon weight to see how it performs against I6 Falcon.

Falcon will have better power and torque, but being RWD I assume use more than the Ecoboost Mondeo.

Cliff notes:

• Falcon I6 same highway economy as ballasted Ecoboost Mondeo
• Falcon I6 uses 6% more fuel than ballasted Ecoboost Mondeo around town
• Falcon I6 2 seconds faster to 100kmh (6.9secs to 8.9secs) than ballasted Ecoboost Mondeo
• They think Ecoboost should be priced cheaper than the I6 (I have been saying this for a while)

Overall a pretty positive review on the Ecoboost.

http://www.carpoint.com.au/reviews/2...d-falcon-26150

Ford Falcon XR6, Ford Mondeo EcoBoost

Quickspin
Melbourne and Geelong, Victoria



In pursuit of better fuel economy, the Falcon is about to get a four-cylinder engine as an option. At motoring.com.au, we’ve been curious about how successful this formula will be.

History shows cars like the four-cylinder Commodore from the 1980s used as much fuel as the six-cylinder versions. That’s because the smaller engine had to work harder to get the big sedan moving. More recent examples include the Mazda CX7 SUV powered by a 2.3 turbocharged four-cylinder engine. Despite what the fuel label says, in the real world it uses as much fuel as a six-cylinder Ford Territory.

So, will the same thing happen to the Falcon, or has technology moved on?


THE SAME BUT DIFFERENT
The four-cylinder Falcon that Ford will call Ecoboost is still at least six months away… So we came up with a test to see how it might perform.

Enter the updated Ford Mondeo. It has the same 2.0-litre, turbocharged four-cylinder that will soon be fitted to the Falcon.

To test the engine’s economy and performance in a bigger, heavier car, we added ballast to the Mondeo, to bring it in line with the weight of the Falcon.

Ford will no doubt change the calibration of the four-cylinder engine when it is slotted under the Falcon’s nose, and the gearbox ratios. Indeed, the gearbox will be completely different – the Falcon remaining rear-wheel drive with a longitudinal engine installation. Driven by the front wheels, in theory the Mondeo has less driveline power loss because the output of the engine doesn’t have to travel far to reach the road.

Together these variables will make a difference to the production version of the four-cylinder Falcon, but were out of our control in this test.

The main aim of our exercise was to find out what happens when Ford’s new four-cylinder engine is required to operate in a much heavier car – especially given that the EcoBoost engine has 30 per cent less power and torque to work with than the Falcon’s six-cylinder.

In the Mondeo, the 2.0-litre EcoBoost engine has 149kW of power and 300Nm of torque. The Falcon’s 4.0-litre six has 195kW of power and 391Nm of torque. But the Mondeo’s 300Nm is available across a wider range of power (from 1750-4500rpm) whereas the Falcon’s peak torque figure is achieved at 3250rpm.

It should be noted at this point that, due to the fettling of local engineers, the Falcon four-cylinder engine will likely have slightly different power and torque than the Mondeo.

So in the meantime, it’s all about the weight – and the wait. The Falcon XR6 sedan weighs 1704kg according to the brochure. Our rental car example, with some luggage on board, weighed 1725kg.

With the help of race team technicians we learned that the Mondeo tipped the scales at 1580kg – so we added 145kg, plus another 10kg for the difference in the weight of the drivers. (Incidentally, before we added any ballast, the Mondeo had a near perfect weight distribution of 479kg/477kg over each front wheel and 311kg over each back wheel. The Falcon, meanwhile, weighed 480kg/459kg over each front wheel and 380kg/406kg at the rear. All figures are left-to-right respectively.)

We then filled each car’s petrol tank to the brim and began our economy challenge…


HITTING THE ROAD
First up was the highway cycle. We drove from the south-eastern outskirts of Melbourne to Geelong, the home of the Falcon’s inline six-cylinder engine.

On the journey there and back, both cars encountered normal traffic conditions, headwinds, crosswinds, even a dash of rain. The average speed was between 80-100km/h. Both cars were driven in the same normal manner – that is, not for fuel economy.

We even took turns over which car would lead, and tried to ensure each car was not in the other’s slipstream – or the draft of other vehicles that could give a wind-break advantage.

Having made it to Geelong we swapped cars (and 10kg of ballast for driver differences) and headed back to Melbourne. Thankfully it was against the peak hour traffic that was coming towards us. There’d be plenty of that in the next part of the test.

Part two of our economy challenge was city and suburban driving, to see how the cars perform in typical traffic conditions.

We expected the Mondeo would do well on the open road because, once up to speed, the weight is less likely to impact on economy. The engine has cylinders that are half the size of the Falcon’s – and two fewer of them. In the city, however, we expected the four-cylinder Mondeo that weighed as much as a Falcon to struggle in stop-start traffic. Not in terms of being able to move its weight, but that it would severely knock the fuel economy around. Only time – and a brimming of the tanks – would tell.

You could certainly feel the extra weight in the Mondeo, but it wasn’t anything it couldn’t handle. After all, our ballast is merely the weight equivalent of taking a couple of mates for a drive.

Our biggest battle was with trams, taxis and the usual bedlam. Once again both cars were driven normally, not for economy.

Progress was slow. Having clocked up almost 200km in a little over two hours on the highway, it took us half a day to travel a fraction of that distance in the city. Our average speed was less than 20km/h. Indeed we spent much of the test going nowhere.

Having done enough of the daily grind – the equivalent of the morning and the afternoon peak – it was time to compare results.

We refilled both cars to the brim, just as we had done the day before after the highway test, and crunched the numbers. The final figures came as a surprise to all testers.

The four-cylinder Mondeo was as thirsty as the Falcon on the freeway – 9.0L/100km compared to the Falcon’s figure of 9.1. Just 0.1 of a difference -- in automotive terms, this is as good as a dead-heat.

In the city, the loaded Mondeo used 14.5L/100km – nowhere near as frugal as the official economy claim, but better than the Falcon, which used 15.4L/100km… A difference of around 6 per cent.

So in our test the four-cylinder was almost no benefit on the freeway, and only a marginal benefit around town.

What needs to be determined now is if Ford Australia can build a four-cylinder Falcon that can deliver better than a 6 per cent fuel saving – in the real world.

And how much will it charge for the four-cylinder option? We reckon it ought to be cheaper than the six-cylinder, but we hear it may come with a price premium.

One more question remains: what about performance?

A back to back acceleration test showed the Falcon six-cylinder is still king. It sprints from rest to 100km/h in 6.9 seconds. Our laden Mondeo stopped the clocks two seconds later. Overtaking performance when on the move also went the Falcon’s way.

We’ll reserve final judgment until we drive the real four-cylinder Falcon.

In the meantime, the early signs are promising: it looks like Ford may have created the first four-cylinder that doesn’t use more fuel than a six-cylinder in a big sedan. The question many will want answered, however, is at what cost to performance.

[Falc'man]

I wonder if they considered that a Falcon with ecoboost wouldn't weigh as much as a normal Falcon. Dumb idiots.

[Jason[98.EL]]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

I wonder if they considered that a Falcon with ecoboost wouldn't weigh as much as a normal Falcon. Dumb idiots.

was thinking the same thing

what would be the difference in weight approx 50 kg ???

that would make a big change in economy

Jason

[phillyc]

I agree that it seemed so well thought out, with some glaring omissions.
* The expected 50kg weight loss that the EB 2.0 I4T will give the FG Falcon.
* The calibration of the Mondeo EcoBoost is not the same as the FG Ecoboost.
* Aerodynamics of both cars are not the same. The FG looks sleeker.

They did rightfully state that the gearbox will be totally different too. But, it was only a comparison and htey were happy with it.

The 6% saving around town, would be better with 3% less weight (50kg).

[jpd80]

Not sure where they got their figures from, Ford website quotes petrol Mondeo Hatch at:

LX 1532
Zetec 1682
Titanium 1692

Since Ecoboost is not available in LX trim, I'd say that the weight is more like 1682 Kg.

I wonder if it was a Holden racing team.......

So, without the 145 kg of balast, the Mondeo probably weighs around 30 Kg lighter
than an I-6 Falcon or about what you would expect teh Ecoboost falcon to weigh...

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Not sure where they got their figures from, Ford website quotes petrol Mondeo Hatch at:

LX 1532
Zetec 1682
Titanium 1692

I dont think those numbers can be right, there is no way the Zetec's alloy wheels (which should be lighter) and parking sensors weigh 150kg over LX.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Brazen

I dont think those numbers can be right, there is no way the Zetec's alloy wheels (which should be lighter) and parking sensors weigh 150kg over LX.

Well that's the figures from FoA website and if they are to be believed, then Mondeo Zetec/Titanium Hatchback is not much lighter than the lightest Falcon (1706 Kg)

Weighing Mondeo and proving the weight is different opens the question that
maybe the Falcon is also not as heavy as we think, shame they didn't weigh it too..

[TP351]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

I wonder if they considered that a Falcon with ecoboost wouldn't weigh as much as a normal Falcon. Dumb idiots.

No-one has ever accused a journalist of being clever.........

Is it actually a real profession??

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by TP351

No-one has ever accused a journalist of being clever.........

Is it actually a real profession??

Fair point. The unfortunate thing is when they screw things up it still has the potential to alter people's perceptions. Screwing something up is only a small problem compared to those moments (and this isn't unique to any industry) where they'll blatantly lie to serve an agenda. In this case I'm not accusing them of the latter, but the former.

I think this is the first time I've seen an article where anyone has attempted such a test which turned out to be a pointless exercise.

[mik]

i was thinking the same thing, different trans/gear ratios as well, different engine calibration, pretty hard to compare really.

[jpd80]

And also, what would be wrong with using the PSA 2.2 I-4 diesel from Ranger in the Falcon?
That very same engine is used as the big diesel in European Mondeos and seems to
power them along well with 147 Kw and 420 nm, just shy or Territory's V6...

Urban 7.8
Extra urban 5.0
Combined 6.0

[Road_Warrior]

They are of course assuming the Falcon I4T will have the same power and torque outputs as the Mondeo.

[vztrt]

What a silly test. Like others have commented we don't know what the specs are of the Falcon, or the weight, or even the gearing.

Its not like the car is years away. They should get a go of it close to the end of the year, so why not just wait.

[ray38l]

And people wonder why the media don't write positive articles about the falcon. This article i think was overall positive and let people know about the changes happening, and what do ford fans do? They nit pick it to death.
The article outlined the purpose of the test and also the shortcomings of the test and still people find something to whine about

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by ray38l

And people wonder why the media don't write positive articles about the falcon. This article i think was overall positive and let people know about the changes happening, and what do ford fans do? They nit pick it to death.
The article outlined the purpose of the test and also the shortcomings of the test and still people find something to whine about

Are you serious. This test is completely wrong for a whole host of reasons, and will not even get close to the results of what the Ecoboost Falcon will achieve. They may as well have stuck a Lambo V12 in the Mondeo, the results would be as about as inaccurate.

The Ecoboost Falcon will have at least 175 kw and 350nm, very close to the I6 and at least 50-80kg lighter. Its power to weight and torque to weight will be very close to the I6.

Early indications are that the Falcon EB4 will use 8 or less L per 100, around 20% better than I6. They claim 0 to 6%.

[jpd80]

I take comfort from US EPA economy testing of the new Explorer FWD V6 and soon to be released Ecoboost I-4.
That vehicle's size and weight is pretty much the same as our Territory and the I-4 is set to power it.
In tems of EPA city/highway test loops the V6 gets 16/24 mpg while the Ecoboost rates at 20/28 mpg.

The improvement in both test loops is close to 20% so I have every confidence that the new Ecoboost Falcon
will surprise and delight buyers with its sparkling performance and impressive fuel economy and in fact,
the Ecoboost Falcon may ultimately make the Ecoboost Mondeo redundant.......

It's a shame that Ford didn't release the Mondeo with the more powerful 179 Kw /365 nm
version of Ecoboost, that would have been an worthy successor to the previous XR5T.

[ray38l]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Are you serious. This test is completely wrong for a whole host of reasons, and will not even get close to the results of what the Ecoboost Falcon will achieve. They may as well have stuck a Lambo V12 in the Mondeo, the results would be as about as inaccurate.

The Ecoboost Falcon will have at least 175 kw and 350nm, very close to the I6 and at least 50-80kg lighter. Its power to weight and torque to weight will be very close to the I6.

Early indications are that the Falcon EB4 will use 8 or less L per 100, around 20% better than I6. They claim 0 to 6%.

i admit the test is flawed. However its free advertising for the falcon. Outside of ford fans and fleet managers no one knows and really cares about the ecoboost engine. Articles like this, although flawed get the word out about the new engine.
When the ecoboost falcon is released and it performs better then these results, which it will, it will only make the falcon look better.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by ray38l

i admit the test is flawed. However its free advertising for the falcon. Outside of ford fans and fleet managers no one knows and really cares about the ecoboost engine. Articles like this, although flawed get the word out about the new engine.
When the ecoboost falcon is released and it performs better then these results, which it will, it will only make the falcon look better.

And the word they are getting out is that it doesn't work, how is that good for Falcon. You can get some ill informed people that will start spreading the word to their mates that the 4 cylinder Falcon uses as much fuel as the 6, and that its a waste of time. Especially Holden owners looking for an excuse to slag off Falcon.

[jpd80]

The crazy part was that this test wan't doen under valid conditions like the European Urban test cycle:

Urban cycle:
Mondeo EB 11.0 l/100 km
Falcon ZF 13.8 l/100 km


The fact that Mondeo scored 14.1 l/100 km and the Falcon used 15.4 l/100 km says that there was a lot more
fuel used by both cars than in the Urban test. I'm not sure what they hoped too achieve by running that type
of test but as most people already know, an I-4 subjected to lots of acceleration and power bursts at lower
speeds will use almost as much fuel as an I-6. Heavy fuel usage like that indicates a lot of acceleration from
rest and transient throttle which becomes more in proportion with the weight shifted than the engine doing the work..

More open running in 60-80 kph zones would have given more meaningful data...

[XESP351]

No offence to the OP, what a stupid comparo.

These journo's actually get paid to do this rubbish??

[ltd]

Stupid test, stupid premise of test, the editor should take a pay cut.
The list of variables like the final power and torque is speculative, and other variables like the gearbox right down to the lighter weight of the I4 falcon aren't really considered. It's not comparing oranges with apples; it'd be like comparing an orange to a pomegranite.

[jpd80]

As faithful as the reporters have tried to make the test, it it far from scientific as neither vehicle
was driven exactly the same with identical acceleration and transient throttle openings.
There is no way the two can be fairly compared over such a short analysis and really,
all you'll get is a glimpse of the real improvement in fuel economy offered by Ecoboost.

In reality, the Falcon does quite well for a large vehicle in comparison with the EB Mondeo.
I'm happy enough to wait and see how FoA go with their version of Ecoboost in the Falcon.

Urban cycle:
Mondeo EB 11.0 l/100 km
Falcon ZF 13.8 l/100 km

Extra Urban cycle:
Mondeo EB 6.5 l/100 km
Falcon ZF 7.6 l/100 km

Combined:
Mondeo EB 8.0 l/100 km
Falcon ZF 9.9 l/100 km

[Falc'man]

The doc's right about that.

[sudszy]

I agree, an ill thought out and pointless test.

Did they even bother to find out what the mondeo consumption for the same conditions were when it wasnt loaded up to the supposed Falcon weight? Then we’d perhaps get an idea whether the mondeo’s comparatively poor performance on the highway was more to do with the aerodynamics than the extra weight or that indeed the mondeo they tested didnt have a drinking problem.

In the city, the loaded Mondeo used 14.5L/100km – nowhere near as frugal as the official economy claim:

, no they just went off the standard consumption figures which we all know could be a long way from what their test would throw up.

that was it, and by the tone, putting down the four cylinder version, they didnt make the same disparaging remark about the falcon not achieving the official economy claims either.


They really show their lack of knowledge when they throw this one up:


History shows cars like the four-cylinder Commodore from the 1980s used as much fuel as the six-cylinder versions. That’s because the smaller engine had to work harder to get the big sedan moving.

By definition if both engines end up doing the same thing, they have done the same amount of work.

What they perhaps could clarify is that the four cylinder engines were often operating at beyond the power at which there were most efficient. An engine is generally the most fuel efficient when it is operating at about 60%(very ball park) of max output, the four cylinder comm engines pushing 120km/h or more on the highway would certainly be beyond 60% of max output and its in this region that engines start using disproportionately more fuel.

However, with the current power output from smaller engines, they will stay comfortably under that 60% max output for almost 100% of the time and since they are operating at closer to the 60% level than a larger engine will use less fuel to do the same amount of work.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I agree, an ill thought out and pointless test.

Did they even bother to find out what the mondeo consumption for the same conditions were when it wasnt loaded up to the supposed Falcon weight? Then we’d perhaps get an idea whether the mondeo’s comparatively poor performance on the highway was more to do with the aerodynamics than the extra weight or that indeed the mondeo they tested didnt have a drinking problem.

In the city, the loaded Mondeo used 14.5L/100km – nowhere near as frugal as the official economy claim:

, no they just went off the standard consumption figures which we all know could be a long way from what their test would throw up.

that was it, and by the tone, putting down the four cylinder version, they didnt make the same disparaging remark about the falcon not achieving the official economy claims either.


They really show their lack of knowledge when they throw this one up:


History shows cars like the four-cylinder Commodore from the 1980s used as much fuel as the six-cylinder versions. That’s because the smaller engine had to work harder to get the big sedan moving.

By definition if both engines end up doing the same thing, they have done the same amount of work.

What they perhaps could clarify is that the four cylinder engines were often operating at beyond the power at which there were most efficient. An engine is generally the most fuel efficient when it is operating at about 60%(very ball park) of max output, the four cylinder comm engines pushing 120km/h or more on the highway would certainly be beyond 60% of max output and its in this region that engines start using disproportionately more fuel.

However, with the current power output from smaller engines, they will stay comfortably under that 60% max output for almost 100% of the time and since they are operating at closer to the 60% level than a larger engine will use less fuel to do the same amount of work.

I think the Mondeo would have better aerodynamics considering its massive budget and having to be designed to travel on autobahns and high-speed European highways, although I have no figures in relation to that.

[GASWAGON]

Lets see them hook up a loaded trailer or even better a full sized caravan for a 'real' overall comparison.... The I6 has an underlying advantage......And that is torque factor... Though that probalbly does'nt mean much to most.... Versatility wins!

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by EF_6

Lets see them hook up a loaded trailer or even better a full sized caravan for a 'real' overall comparison.... The I6 has an underlying advantage......And that is torque factor... Though that probalbly does'nt mean much to most.... Versatility wins!

i doubt anyone will be buying an ecoboost falcon to tow their caravan with...

[prydey]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

i doubt anyone will be buying an ecoboost falcon to tow their caravan with...

why not?

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by prydey

why not?

while im sure it could, i would think most buying the ecoboost would be doing it more for the possible fuel savings/ rego saving etc. ie fleets.
plus i think the i6 would be a better option for towing.

will be interesting to see how the sales figures go with ecoboost vs ecolpi.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

while im sure it could, i would think most buying the ecoboost would be doing it more for the possible fuel savings/ rego saving etc. ie fleets.
plus i think the i6 would be a better option for towing.

will be interesting to see how the sales figures go with ecoboost vs ecolpi.

I agree with you, Ecoboost targets a completely different group of buyers,
something we haven't seen Ford do since the introduction of the Territory.

Or more correctly, Territory targeted the majority of station wagon owners moving to SUVs
while perhaps Ecoboost targets people wanting a big car with power but with I-4 economy..

Fleets will jump all over EcoLPI while private buyers will head for Ecoboost.
Wouldn't it be funny if reality is the reverse of expectations.....