4cyl Falcon - Who will buy one?

[Matty4]

Re: 4cyl Falcon - Who will buy one?

Not me...
I like my 450+nm of torque and at least 2300kg towing capacity.
If I changed the type of cars we have, it will be a big TD "something or other" for family trips and towing duties and a smaller TD sedan (possibly hatch), with better economy than an EB unit too..

[Bossxr8]

Early testing by journos have said it will be over 1 second quicker to 100 than the 3 litre SISI V6.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I'm pretty sure they say the towing capacity is 1600kg for Ecoboost 4, you can't get the heavy duty 2300kg towing pack on it, but you can on the I6.

Everyone whinges about towing capacity, but I can't remember the last time I seen a Falcon towing more than a 6x4 trailer loaded with crap for the tip, which a petrol Focus could do fine anyways.

When it comes to towing, people generally have SUVs/4X4s for bigger loads anyways?

Everyone seems to demand something in a car, which they'll never use anyways but they want it there "just in case".

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by jpd80

While most Ford UK vehicle prices transpose and convert to Australian dollars on the road..
The one big glaring anomaly is Titanium Mondeo at around £22,000 which
should equate to around AUS$36,000 but no Ford Australia puts it out at $47,000
So tell me, whay is it that the high tech Titanium Focus isn't selling in greater numbers,
is it the $47,000 price tag or that buyers are not especially looking for those features yet.

The new Focus and Mondeo Titanium incorporate new features previously unavailable on a vehicle at these price points and I suspect many people in Australia and New Zealand are at present unfamiliar with the sort of features and technology these models bring to the market. That and the price premium obviously play a part as does the fact that the Mondeo is a mature model. Interestingly the Mondeo Titanium Ecoboost has a retail price of $52,990 in N.Z. which translated at the current exchange rate of approx 76 cents suggests approx $40,000 retail in Australia, but of course there's the import tariff. In New Zealand the top spec Mondeo is $6,000 less than a G6E which retails for $58,990, so one has all the pleasure of that new technology and enjoys a significant price advantage to do so.

all the features you list will eventually be standard fitment to lower models
in Mondeo and Falcon as well as Focus....it may take several years but they will be there..

They're allready there on the top spec Ford Taurus, FoA are dragging the chain and getting further behind, technology has moved on a long way since the FG was launched in early 2008 whereas Ford have improved the Falcon only modestly IMO.

That Ford is prepared to sell Mondeo alongside Falcon says they are
confident that the two complement each other more than compete..

What have they got to lose...and yes it does appear Ford Australia have taken a protective approach to Falcon sales by where they've priced the Mondeo.

Oh, next Mondeo on CD4 will be mid to late 2013 in Europe, don't expect to see it before then

That's not what I've read but let's see in due course.

Oh, you do realise that Mondeo is actually wider than the Falcon.
Falcon, especially FPV variants are great drivers cars, all I'm saying is personally, (especially at a price advantage of being $6,000 cheaper), I'd be leaning towards a Mondeo Titanium over a G6E four potter, (all this for me anyway is of course purely theoretical as i'm very happy with my current daily).

Fleets will buy them and I'm sure those looking for a more nimble fuel efficient large car will be interested in the four potter but I think the new liquid injection I6 has a lot more to offer Australians especially from efficiency and on-going security of fuel supply perspectives. Horses for courses, if one is interested in a large fuel efficient sedan and lives in Australia a liquid injection I6 looks like the best bet, in New Zealand with LPG nearly double the price and less than 15 years confirmed supply, the Mondeo Titanium is probably the better bet. Just my opinion but to me the Mondeo blurrs the lines between the medium and large car segment with its class leading width in particular.

[z80]

Originally Posted by prydey

you're not following along very well. 149kw is the mondeo version. falcon will get a much higher state of tune, probably around 170-180kw.

it will be similar power and weight to AU falcon.

Hmmm...the Volvo has the 170kw, but the Ford has 149kw.

We are talking about a Ford powertrain.

Ford Australia aren't saying anything, (and haven't yet anywhere that i can see.)

All that's in print is journalists speculation that it may be 170kw.

If the aim is fuel economy then it would need around 15 psi of boost to get the equivalent power of a 3.5-4L power plant out of a 2L...(170+KW)

In my opinion it would be a challenge to improve on 10L/100km if that was the case.

You can't get something for nothing when talking about power, you want 4 litre performance you get 4L fuel consumption.

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Nobody has mentioned the huge amount of Technology in the Ecoboost Mondeo Titanium that's missing from even a G6E 4 pot Falcon, e.g. adaptive cruise control, blind spot assist, lane departure warning, cornering headlights, forward collision warning e.t.c. Ford N.Z. website has the Mondeo Titanium Ecoboost listed at 1569 kg's. There's also the diesel version with 5.6 litres per 100 km's for those really serious about fuel efficiency.

Personally notwithstanding the FWD v RWD debate, I would find the technology in a car like the Mondeo Titanium the more attractive proposition and lets not forget there's an all new Mondeo due out in late 2012, probably with even more kit. If I was buying is this segment I'd keep my powder dry and have a look at the new Mondeo.

There is one HUGE tech that Falcon has that is 100 times better than all the ones you mention the Mendeo has!!! TOUCH SCREEN!! That alone has me in a Falcon over a Mondeo.. Just as apple how inportant touch screen technology is!!

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by z80

Hmmm...the Volvo has the 170kw, but the Ford has 149kw.

We are talking about a Ford powertrain.

Ford Australia aren't saying anything, (and haven't yet anywhere that i can see.)

All that's in print is journalists speculation that it may be 170kw.

If the aim is fuel economy then it would need around 15 psi of boost to get the equivalent power of a 3.5-4L power plant out of a 2L...(170+KW)

In my opinion it would be a challenge to improve on 10L/100km if that was the case.

You can't get something for nothing when talking about power, you want 4 litre performance you get 4L fuel consumption.

They detuned the Mondeo for a reason, so they don't throw possible customers off the Falcon, when they could get the similar sized Mondeo, with the same engine, power, being lighter and better equipped. Its not because thats all that Ford could get out of it.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by z80

If the aim is fuel economy then it would need around 15 psi of boost to get the equivalent power of a 3.5-4L power plant out of a 2L...(170+KW)

In my opinion it would be a challenge to improve on 10L/100km if that was the case.

You can't get something for nothing when talking about power, you want 4 litre performance you get 4L fuel consumption.

not that chestnut again.

just curious z80 - what do you drive and what sort of mileage do you get? you seem a bit stuck in the past when it comes to fuel economy on the latest big fords. plenty of members on here will confirm that the factory figures are realistic.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Rodge

That's not what I've read but let's see in due course.

CD4 Fusion is out middle of 2012, Mondeo will follow approximately 12 months after that.

Oh, you do realise that Mondeo is actually wider than the Falcon.

So, do you gauge a car's width by external dimensions or by hip and shoulder room?
Next time you're comparing Mondeo and falcon, take a look at the differnt widths of the centre console..
Check the interior dimensions, you'll be shocked to see how much more room falcon really has, it makes all the difference.

Shoulder room
Falcon 1523
Mondeo 1448 ...oh dear, that's actually 75 mm less, three inches less!!!

Just my opinion but to me the Mondeo blurrs the lines between the medium and large car segment with its class leading width in particular.

Yes it does and that's the next job for FoA, lightening the Falcon to make it more attractive to buyers,
having great fuel economy in a big car like Falcon is an absolute boon because buyers need not be afraid of fuel prices.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Yes it does and that's the next job for FoA, lightening the Falcon to make it more attractive to buyers,
having great fuel economy in a big car like Falcon is an absolute boon because buyers need not be afraid of fuel prices.

or.. make mondeo smaller. this'll probably never happen though as its a global car and in most other euro markets is probably close to being a large car.

pretty hard to do much about falcon weight without adjusting the price too much. aluminium panels and composite body components all cost more money.

[timbell]

I will in a few years time. To say I'm excited about the ecoboost is an understatement.

[TMC]

If it's around 0.4 sec slower to 100kmh from a standing start than the I6 I doubt it's the 149kW Ecoboost engine in it. The I6 is 195kW, and I would hazard a guess it's the 177kW Ecoboost going into the Falcon looking at the acceleration times. Anyway it's the torque curve not peak power figures that show whether a motor is drivable or not in a given weight vehicle. If the Ecoboost has 340-360Nm of torque from say 1800-4500 rpm it is more than a good match for the I6. Remember in the EF-EL days they were 157kW at 5200rpm and 357Nm of torque at 3250rpm. The EF, EL's weren't really race cars, but they were far from slugs and towed well. If the Ecoboost 4 cylinders have a power and torque curve even as good as the old SOHC I6 engines then it's going to be a great drive.

Remember torque is torque, power is power and it doesn't matter if it's a 2 cylinder, 4 cylinder, 6 , 8, 12 or 16 cylinder that produces it.

I'm looking forward to test driving one of these Ecoboost Falcons and maybe even hiring one for a weekend away to put it through its paces.

[DFB FGXR6]

I think the amount of power and performance from the EB4 will be very good and certainly wont dissapoint when compared to the 4.0 I6. For me the question will be how will the economy fare with the a smaller engine that needs to be boost more of the time when asked to tow or carry 4/5 people and their luggage or both. So what will use more fuel under these conditions? The big old six with plenty lazy torque in reserve or the harder working turbo 4that needs boost?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by TMC

If it's around 0.4 sec slower to 100kmh from a standing start than the I6 I doubt it's the 149kW Ecoboost engine in it. The I6 is 195kW, and I would hazard a guess it's the 177kW Ecoboost going into the Falcon looking at the acceleration times. Anyway it's the torque curve not peak power figures that show whether a motor is drivable or not in a given weight vehicle. If the Ecoboost has 340-360Nm of torque from say 1800-4500 rpm it is more than a good match for the I6. Remember in the EF-EL days they were 157kW at 5200rpm and 357Nm of torque at 3250rpm. The EF, EL's weren't really race cars, but they were far from slugs and towed well. If the Ecoboost 4 cylinders have a power and torque curve even as good as the old SOHC I6 engines then it's going to be a great drive.

Remember torque is torque, power is power and it doesn't matter if it's a 2 cylinder, 4 cylinder, 6 , 8, 12 or 16 cylinder that produces it.

I'm looking forward to test driving one of these Ecoboost Falcons and maybe even hiring one for a weekend away to put it through its paces.

I have to agree with what you say, until we get a good look over the Ecoboost everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What fills me with hope is that Ecoboost has already gaped the 3.0 SIDI by being a second faster 0-100 kph.

I doubt that performance will be a problem, I the fuel economy holds up under scrutiny, that is paramount...

[SVR73]

I'll never buy a brand new again or anything made after 2007
if the AU Tickford six got written off, I may not buy another ford but if I did, a BF II Typhoon, XR6 Turbo or other performance ford would get the nod

fuel is cheap when you compare it to the price of milk and how much wages have increased over the years

having a brand new car is all well and good but I don't see the quality in todays cars interior materials and looks wise

[raptorv8]

Originally Posted by z80

Hmmm...the Volvo has the 170kw, but the Ford has 149kw.

We are talking about a Ford powertrain.

Ford Australia aren't saying anything, (and haven't yet anywhere that i can see.)

All that's in print is journalists speculation that it may be 170kw.

If the aim is fuel economy then it would need around 15 psi of boost to get the equivalent power of a 3.5-4L power plant out of a 2L...(170+KW)

In my opinion it would be a challenge to improve on 10L/100km if that was the case.

You can't get something for nothing when talking about power, you want 4 litre performance you get 4L fuel consumption.

A range rover evoque with the same engine and roughly teh same weight is in the 8s

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by z80

Hmmm...the Volvo has the 170kw, but the Ford has 149kw.

We are talking about a Ford powertrain.

Ford Australia aren't saying anything, (and haven't yet anywhere that i can see.)

All that's in print is journalists speculation that it may be 170kw.

If the aim is fuel economy then it would need around 15 psi of boost to get the equivalent power of a 3.5-4L power plant out of a 2L...(170+KW)

In my opinion it would be a challenge to improve on 10L/100km if that was the case.

You can't get something for nothing when talking about power, you want 4 litre performance you get 4L fuel consumption.

179 Kw variant used in Explorer is running 16 psi boost on regular fuel, not 95 not 98 octane.
Ecoboost is way ahead of anything the tune shops can do, they are using advanced
fuel delivery techniques and cooled EGR to control detonation, it's a sophisticated balance,
ence Ecoboost and the software strategies employed are all trademarked...

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by SVR73

fuel is cheap when you compare it to the price of milk and how much wages have increased over the years

I don't drink ~100 litres of milk a week and in 15 years, petrol has quadrupled but my pay hasn't - thanks to working in IT, my pay has actually gone down..!

Prices will continue to trend upwards and inevitably, only the lucky few will be able to afford to drive a V8 as a daily.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

I think the amount of power and performance from the EB4 will be very good and certainly wont dissapoint when compared to the 4.0 I6. For me the question will be how will the economy fare with the a smaller engine that needs to be boost more of the time when asked to tow or carry 4/5 people and their luggage or both. So what will use more fuel under these conditions? The big old six with plenty lazy torque in reserve or the harder working turbo 4that needs boost?

You make a good point here. Fuel economy figures are calculated at part throttle cruise conditions essentially. For a large car to cruise at 100kmh probably only requires 20-25kW or even less. Towing at 100kmh for example would use more kW proportional to the overall weight.

The question being asked then is - once this engine is loaded up ie for towing or for acceleration will it's fuel economy go out of the window? My thoughts are, no it won't. The engine management of these Ecoboost engines looks quite a bit different to how the I6 is run. The Ecoboost is basically running compression ratios and boost pressures closer to what you'd see in a diesel. Ramming the cylinders full of air by forced induction actually creates an environment more conducive to a complete burn of the fuel. So once you make power demands of the engine, the engine management can ram heaps of air and fuel down the thing and have it burn efficiently, or create more power for less fuel input. Multiple injection pulses during the power stroke gives a much more precise combustion process.

Of course during cruise (where most of the engines life is spent) it will just idle away as a small 2L engine. This will have benefits in stop start driving where an idling 2L motor will use much less fuel than an idling 4L motor. Stand on the accelerator pedal and all the potential of the motor will be unleashed.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Everyone whinges about towing capacity, but I can't remember the last time I seen a Falcon towing more than a 6x4 trailer loaded with crap for the tip, which a petrol Focus could do fine anyways.

When it comes to towing, people generally have SUVs/4X4s for bigger loads anyways?

Everyone seems to demand something in a car, which they'll never use anyways but they want it there "just in case".

Bingo...correct.
Like the wailing and nashing of teeth whenever the subject of dropping the V8 rears its head..."what about people towing big loads like horse floats and big boats!!!??"
Simple...look around...people buy Landcruisers or Patrols or maybe one of those F250 monstrosities...they don't buy a V8 Falcon or Commodore.

For the simply vast majority of buyers, a four cylinder Falcon would be all the car they need...the clever marketing will be in making them aware of that fact. Way too many people buy a vehicle too bit for their actual needs and never seem to realise they are paying higher insurance and rego costs for no reason.

[PoweredByCNG]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

It will be 179 kw as a minimum. And it makes peak torque of at least 340-360nm as a guess at something like 1800 rpm, so it won't need to be revved hard.

It actually makes peak torque at around half the revs it does in the I6 Falcon.

That's right. It's torque that gets these large cars going - NOT power!

[csv8]

If you believe the Motoring section in the 01/01/2012, Sunday Mail. FG2 is the last Falcon and the Mondeo will replace the Falcon.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by csv8

If you believe the Motoring section in the 01/01/2012, Sunday Mail. FG2 is the last Falcon and the Mondeo will replace the Falcon.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol, how can they be so stupid... why would ford invest so heavily things like miami, ecoboost, ecolpi etc if they were gonna can it... that decision would be made so far in advance it will be obvious when its time.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by PoweredByCNG

That's right. It's torque that gets these large cars going - NOT power!

it's a weird one. Torque gets it going off the line and gives the driver the throttle response, but power gives the acceleration times.

[Mickxr8]

Only ever crashed 2 cars in my lifetime ( 43 now) , both were 4cyl, main reasoning behind this is absolute lack of throttle responce when you need it.
1/2 a second lag time when the righty goes down can kill ya, put a slack back behind it and may as well pack a cut lunch and some taroh cards to amuse yourself whilst the computers have a little chat and decide how to ruin your day ,

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by mickxr8

Only ever crashed 2 cars in my lifetime ( 43 now) , both were 4cyl, main reasoning behind this is absolute lack of throttle responce when you need it.

What if a 4 cylinder could accelerate a Falcon as quickly as a BA 4-speed auto, would you give it a go?

A four cylinder turbo that can gap an Omega Commodore on the 0-100 kph time by about a second is worth a look..

[prydey]

Originally Posted by mickxr8

Only ever crashed 2 cars in my lifetime ( 43 now) , both were 4cyl, main reasoning behind this is absolute lack of throttle responce when you need it.
1/2 a second lag time when the righty goes down can kill ya, put a slack back behind it and may as well pack a cut lunch and some taroh cards to amuse yourself whilst the computers have a little chat and decide how to ruin your day ,

did those 4cyl have close to 180kw and about 80% of torque available from under 2000rpm??

people really need to let go of the cylinder count!

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by jpd80

CD4 Fusion is out middle of 2012, Mondeo will follow approximately 12 months after that.

So, do you gauge a car's width by external dimensions or by hip and shoulder room?
Next time you're comparing Mondeo and falcon, take a look at the differnt widths of the centre console..
Check the interior dimensions, you'll be shocked to see how much more room falcon really has, it makes all the difference.

Shoulder room
Falcon 1523
Mondeo 1448 ...oh dear, that's actually 75 mm less, three inches less!!!


Yes it does and that's the next job for FoA, lightening the Falcon to make it more attractive to buyers,
having great fuel economy in a big car like Falcon is an absolute boon because buyers need not be afraid of fuel prices.

I certainly havn't got as scientific as you mate but I'm a really big guy, (built like a world champion front row All Black ), sorry couldn't resist that, and the Mondeo certainly felt quite comfortable to me.

How do you explain that we get the 149KW 300 nm Ecoboost tune, is there any other explanation than Ford Australia protecting their manufacturing patch ?

Making the Falcon lighter won't be easy, Holden are said to be saving a "whopping" 15kg's by using aluminium panels, pretty underwhelming wouldn't you agree ? In that context the 60kg's weight saving with the ecoboost engine should fundamentally change the front end character of the Falcon so apart from the fuel saving that's probably the next biggest feature of the Ecoboost.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Rodge

How do you explain that we get the 149KW 300 nm Ecoboost tune, is there any other explanation than Ford Australia protecting their manufacturing patch ?

maybe the rest of the mondeo package isn't up to more power. maybe more power would mean a lot of other calibrations would need to be changed. similar to FPV whacking the SCV8 under the bonnet without changing much in the way of chassis dynamics means the overall package isn't quite what it used to be. just a guess, but i'd also say, for that class and demographic, the 149kw tune is ample.

Originally Posted by Rodge

the 60kg's weight saving with the ecoboost engine should fundamentally change the front end character of the Falcon

i wouldn't go as far as to say 'fundamentally change'. the front end probably weighs a ton, so minus 60kg won't have a massive impact. any improvement will probably be as a result of better weight distribution rather than being lighter.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I certainly havn't got as scientific as you mate but I'm a really big guy, (built like a world champion front row All Black ), sorry couldn't resist that, and the Mondeo certainly felt quite comfortable to me.

I'm a big bloke too, Mondeo is comfortable but Falcon is more so, I don't disagree that there's a lot of overlap,
that's why the next Taurus is being developed as a larger version of Mondeo/Fusion..

How do you explain that we get the 149KW 300 nm Ecoboost tune, is there any other explanation than Ford Australia protecting their manufacturing patch ?

1) FoE calls the shots on what vehicles they can supply to FoA and FNZ
2) Australia has unique ADRs for wiring so any of our FoE sourced vehicles are built in runs usually after foE have filled theirs,
3) It's FoA prerogative to supply what ever vehicles it chooses to reduce internal competition.

Making the Falcon lighter won't be easy, Holden are said to be saving a "whopping" 15kg's by using aluminium panels, pretty underwhelming wouldn't you agree ? In that context the 60kg's weight saving with the ecoboost engine should fundamentally change the front end character of the Falcon so apart from the fuel saving that's probably the next biggest feature of the Ecoboost.

Ford hasn't begun to lighten the frame of the Falcon, not needing to carry a V8 or tow 2300 kg means more reductions are possible..

In short, Mondeo has its place, Falcon has its place and if Ford chooses to explore the possibility of Ecoboost then what's the harm?
After all, they are spending their money, none of us are personally invested...