Would you drive a 2.5L 6cyl Falcon? (or a 3.5L V8 for that matter...)

marcosambrose · 08-09-2005, 12:40 AM

With the usual petrol talk going around blah, blah blah. I cant be bothered going into since everyone knows the story - my question is:

Would you buy a 2.5L 6cyl Falcon? instead of a 4.0L you would increase fuel economy but at least 25-40% and the power would of course drop to about 140-160kw, but then again, if your a city driver you dont need the huge power from the 182 barra.

I know i would, for sure, ive always felt that 0-100 in 7.2sec (BA XT 182) is way too much for a fleet car, camrys have great economy but not really a drivers car, do we really need that much power? its good for enthusists but majority of 6cyl Falcon buyers are fleet so whats the point.

I think Ford should get ahead of the game and have something like this:

2.5L 6cyl XT, Futura, Fairmont, XR6
3.2L 6Cyl Fairmont, Fairmont Ghia, XR6
3.2L 6Cyl Turbo XR6 Turbo
3.5L V8 Fairmont Ghia, XTV8
4.4L V8 XR8 (ala Ferrari)

What do you guys think? maybe also:

2.3L 5cyl <- ive always thought that would be fine for a fleet car or taxi, why do they need so much power? who knows....
2.5L 6cyl Diesel XT, Futura, Fairmont, XR6
3.2L 6cyl Diesel Fairmont Ghia, XR6-D (performance diesel XR)

also i wrote a letter to Ford Oz a while back stating that a Diesel engine would be good for the BAIII (now BF) but i dont think they will have one.

Im open to critisism, support for my cause just say what you think...

BA GT-HO · 08-09-2005, 01:21 AM

I think BMW have it spot on with the 3 Series:

316i
318i also available in diesel
320i also available in diesel
323i
325i
330i also available in diesel

In that range you have the econobox 1.6 4cyl or the 3ltr six 330i which is a more sporty car. You can really pick and choose. You can have a 330i in diesel so you get more performance but better economy. I am not sure if those diesels are available in oz tho..

Ford should look at something like that for the future.

MrSparkle · 08-09-2005, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BA GT-HO

I think BMW have it spot on with the 3 Series:

316i
318i also available in diesel
320i also available in diesel
323i
325i
330i also available in diesel

In that range you have the econobox 1.6 4cyl or the 3ltr six 330i which is a more sporty car. You can really pick and choose. You can have a 330i in diesel so you get more performance but better economy. I am not sure if those diesels are available in oz tho..

Ford should look at something like that for the future.

Damn straight! I'll have a luxo spec 530d in black thanks. Incidentally, Top Gear ran a 530d around their test track and it did a ridiculously quick lap time, on par with the RX8 and 350Z!!!! That's mental!!!!!

LTDHO · 08-09-2005, 07:48 AM

Assuming the smaller motor will be efficient to carry the weight of a BA XT - Fairmont. They would probably use more fuel!

Maybe keep same motor but decrease the bore size to lower volume. Then there could still be the 4.0 for F/Mont Ghia, XR and LWB.

I rememeber the 4cylindr VB-VC Commordore and it was a graet idea just not practical. At the time Commodore had two 6's and two 8's..
At the moment there is less available. So now would be good for a smaller 6 for XT, Futura and Fairmont.

merlin · 08-09-2005, 07:54 AM

I think they should offer dedicated E-Gas across the entire range.

conordec · 08-09-2005, 01:38 AM

buy a small motor daily driver and have a toy... simple.

loxxr6 · 08-09-2005, 01:59 AM

Quote:

also i wrote a letter to Ford Oz a while back stating that a Diesel engine would be good for the BAIII (now BF) but i dont think they will have one.

Diesel apparently isn't as cheap here as it is in Europe hence the slow response to getting our local cars diesel-ed.

Territory may change this ?

**ebxr8240** · 08-09-2005, 02:04 AM

On a heavy vehicle diesel is very economical...
Imo must be turbo'd though....

Mike Gayner · 08-09-2005, 05:08 AM

The Falcon market is people who want a larger engine, why ruin that?

AUIII XR8 MAN · 08-09-2005, 06:17 AM

I think that Ford should think about making a smaller motor again for the Falcon. But they do offer a LPG motor for the Falcon & with the price of petrol you think that they would be selling like hot cakes.

Bucknaked · 08-09-2005, 06:29 AM

They should have gas options for every car in the Ford and FPV range.

TheSneakiness · 08-09-2005, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

They should have gas options for every car in the Ford and FPV range.

Yeah, I'm with Bucky here.

I for one, wouldn't like to be driving a Falcon at about half capacity. I could imagine how I'd get paid out at work (Which happens everyday as soon as I mention Ford).

"See you got one of them new Falcons mate"
"Yeah"
"What's the engine in it?"
"2.5l 6"
"AH HA HA HA HA HA HA. Your old one had 4.0l. AH HA HA HA HA"

For me, it just wouldn't seem right having a "tiny" engine in a family sedan.

NAK302 · 08-09-2005, 06:39 AM

didn't holden do this with commodore? how successful was that?
my old man has a 3.5 litre range rover v8. he bought it new in 1978 and that thing chews more juice than a 58 year old alcho.
smaller capacity dosn't mean smaller fuel economy, better efficiency does.

OzJavelin · 08-09-2005, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nak351

didn't holden do this with commodore? how successful was that?
my old man has a 3.5 litre range rover v8. he bought it new in 1978 and that thing chews more juice than a 58 year old alcho.
smaller capacity dosn't mean smaller fuel economy, better efficiency does.

Yep .. and all engines built around the SAME TIME - i.e. not 28years ago - should have about the same efficiency. So if Ford could mod the MOD V8 engine down to about 4.0L it still would be pretty efficient and pretty powerful. [ have people forgotten that you loose efficience as you make engines bigger? ]

Problem is the barge-*** cars it would get thrown into. The Yanks are still(?) using the old CrownVic body and powering it with the 4.6LV8 .. underwhelming performance. Build a smaller, lighter car - i.e. NOT a BA/BF Falcon - and put a 4.0L V8 in it and see how it goes. I'd be happy to buy one these days ..

Yeah, I'm an "expert" on these things. I currently own a '69 Dodge Phoenix and a '70 Plymouth Fury. I know how much power is required just to push a big barge around and how much fuel that process wastes ...

dogwatch2 · 08-09-2005, 08:37 AM

I already do drive a 2.5l six but it's not a falcon but a toyota,

...oh, it's also got two turbo's to help it. The only way to have a 2.5l six.

Des · 08-09-2005, 08:44 AM

The BMW 3 & 5 series have a much smaller frontal area and are lighter to boot, i.e. require less power/ torque to push along. Remember the Kingswood Mazda did with a rotary in it? Starfire powered Commodore? Very underwhelming. Greater efficiency yes, smaller engine, not necessarily. Diesel, definitely yes, Fords got access to the new Jaguar twin turbo V6.
I've driven a 5 series with the 3.5 V8, similar performance to an XT (going by the "seat of pants" timer).

mcflux · 08-09-2005, 10:06 AM

2.5L sixes? Where's the torque?

"where's the beef?"

Small engines and large cars don't really mix well, especially for city driving. I can't really see a 2.5L six punting a 1700kg car around too efficiently. A 2.5L four would probably fare better, but it'd feel like driving a hilux four

:

-Dave-

leonbray · 08-09-2005, 07:08 AM

6 speed auto with supercharged 3.6 V8 pushing 400kw - my kind of economy

darkfang888 · 08-09-2005, 10:09 AM

uhh... maybe, but I think the most logical option is for next years BF Falcon to re-introduce the 3.2L 6cyl dropped when the EAII came out.

mcflux · 08-09-2005, 10:16 AM

Apart from the obvious - crank & rods, I wonder how easy (or difficult) it'd be for the Ford engineers to come up with an ECU tailored to a small six?

I could see it being quite revvy! 8000rpm 3.0 "baby" xr6 turbo?

Des · 08-09-2005, 10:21 AM

Go have a look at the Jaguar V6's, cause that's probably what you'd get. Do Ford Europe have other 6's? What about the States? Don't they just use versions of the Duratec six?

marcosambrose · 08-09-2005, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfang888

uhh... maybe, but I think the most logical option is for next years BF Falcon to re-introduce the 3.2L 6cyl dropped when the EAII came out.

Thats what i think they should have, thats why its there.

the 2.5 was just to see what ppl would think, i dont think its practical, maybe a 2.5L DieselTurbo?

Steffo · 08-09-2005, 11:14 AM

I'll stick with the E-Gas 4.0.... keep the torque, and cheaper to fuel then a Corolla. 2.5 Falcon? The way things are going, it'll probably happen....

RED_EL_XR8 · 08-09-2005, 12:00 PM

Yawn yet more carry on about fuel price fluctuations. the 3.x engines were dropped from the falcon range as they were no longer either popular or relevant with the introduction of EFI.

The last big oil price hike was the one that brought us such automotive tragedies as the Sigma and the 4 cylinder commodore, which large family car prospered through those times.

There is no need for Falcon to become coal fired, or horse drawn or any other knee jerk measure to a percentage increase in fuel price. And the old tech of a small motor working its cracker out in a heavy car wont wash either. Look for more options such as dedicated e-gas, DOD technology etc.

After marker Retro-fitted pram parts and pond gas is not relevant to a 2005 motorcar neither is a too small engine displacement.

mcflux · 08-09-2005, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

I'll stick with the E-Gas 4.0.... keep the torque, and cheaper to fuel then a Corolla. 2.5 Falcon? The way things are going, it'll probably happen....

Yep, if I wanted a new daily driver it'd be an E-Gas Ford of some sort.

mr_efxr · 08-09-2005, 12:27 PM

You really think a 2.5L would push along a 1600Kg. No chance, only if it was a Diesel Turbo like the little euro's.

Paris Hilton · 08-09-2005, 12:47 PM

One of the main reasons that the 3.2 was dropped for the EAII was that it used the same amount of fuel as the 3.9, while making 30 less kw's or something

:

RED_EL_XR8 · 08-09-2005, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slection

One of the main reasons that the 3.2 was dropped for the EAII was that it used the same amount of fuel as the 3.9, while making 30 less kw's or something

:

But you've fixed that and returned a sizeable difference haven't you.

: Muhaha

The MaDDeSTMaN · 08-09-2005, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slection

One of the main reasons that the 3.2 was dropped for the EAII was that it used the same amount of fuel as the 3.9, while making 30 less kw's or something

:

According to http://www.deleted link/portal/kb.ph..._num=4&start=0 -

Quote:

Three in-line six cylinder engines were initially available; a 3.2 litre single-point injected (aka throttle body injected) engine, a 3.9 litre single-point, and the 3.9 litre multipoint (MPI). The 3.2 was dropped later in 1988 because in addition to the top dog 3.9 multipoint delivering over 50% more power, it actually used no more fuel in the process!

So I think there would have to be other changes, not just reducing the huge stroke, otherwise it wouldn't be worth the effort.

mcflux · 08-09-2005, 02:12 PM

(marcosambrose -->) V6?!? And how much do you expect customers to willingly shell out for these imported engines?

Hmm, let's buy an econo car that's more expensive to buy than the 4.0 version!

(maddestman -->) Well, the 3.2 was a CFI setup. Maybe an MPFI conversion would make an uber-econo EA? Would be a mad bus...

:

-Dave-