Another bad rap for SIDI

[g220ba]

Originally Posted by SVD

persoanally id prefer to see the 5cyl out of the XR5, it wouldn't be too bad of a change for a falcon... of course with a re-work for some more torque and what not, but it could be a good thing for the falcon, so then it isn't just seen as one of those BIG family cars that drink fuel (which they dont....)

Unfortunetly thats a Vovlo motor and they and their technology appear to be going to Geely.

[galaxy xr8]

Originally Posted by bingoTE50

And Ford should not go ahead with a turbo four ,there is no way known that current falcon drivers would even entertain the idea of buying one....

I would, I am eagerly awaiting the ecoboost to see it's performance and economy, I am one of those falcon driver's that you claim ,will not buy one, but I can assure you, it has me interested.

[SVD]

Originally Posted by 84ltd

Unfortunetly thats a Vovlo motor and they and their technology appear to be going to Geely.

so whats happening to the XR5 turbo's and Focus RS?

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by SVD

so whats happening to the XR5 turbo's and Focus RS?

5 to 4 pot.

[mik]

Originally Posted by TUF_302

My brothers old R31 Skyline gets better fuel economy from its 3ltr strait 6, and its 18 years old lol! , wonder how long there will be a 3ltr commy around lol!

[The G6ET Spot]

I love it that you don't get a spare wheel with it either.

It is optional

[Chilliman]

Originally Posted by bingoTE50

And Ford should not go ahead with a turbo four ,there is no way known that current falcon drivers would even entertain the idea of buying one....

If Ford don't get it right then they shouldn't go ahead with it, but if they do get it right (and Ford has been getting alot right lately) then it has the potential to bring alot of new buyers to the Falcon nameplate.

[castellan]

A 4 CYL falcon!
Holden tried that! with the VC commo.
They were waffling on that they were going to sell more 4cyl then the 6.
But they were rubbish and were no better on fuel then a 6 in the real world driving.
The falcon is way to heavy. and a turbo 4 would be stupid.

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by castellan

A 4 CYL falcon!
Holden tried that! with the VC commo.
They were waffling on that they were going to sell more 4cyl then the 6.
But they were rubbish and were no better on fuel then a 6 in the real world driving.
The falcon is way to heavy. and a turbo 4 would be stupid.

Yeah, becuase technology & customer "wants" havn't changed in 20 years either!!

[mik]

Originally Posted by castellan

A 4 CYL falcon!
Holden tried that! with the VC commo.
They were waffling on that they were going to sell more 4cyl then the 6.
But they were rubbish and were no better on fuel then a 6 in the real world driving.
The falcon is way to heavy. and a turbo 4 would be stupid.

we`ll have to wait and see , that was then this is now.

[blue_ute]

i think i found what they'll use to sell their cars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG1-mdPn7T0)its a pro holden review but i'm confused they say it will stay in the same rev range while going up a hill isn't that a bad thing ?

[SVTVNM]

Is it just me or it seems that Holdens Commodore adverts don't seem to spruke the Economy of the SIDI engines like they used too. Backing marketing off? or just realization of a products failure to live up to it's expectations.

[cosmo20btt]

Typical that the NRMA are just mimicking the specs straight off the GMH propaganda site, they had a dyno figure yet never mentioned what they got. Then went on to say it might suite most people, what a waste of real peoples time.

[Chopped]

Who or what is car advice ?

http://www.caradvice.com.au/about-us/ < lol
(what a bunch of champions / seems like anyone can give car reviews / and if the people like what you wrote THEN you are the best motoring site out there.....obviously)

[bingoTE50]

I did say current Falcon drivers would not buy it.....

What will it achieve ? 200kw ? 8l/100 combined , Ron 98 fuel ? . What price ?- 5k cheaper ? Towing ability ? Torque lag ?
It still has to haul plenty of weight,I cannot see the point. Buy a Mondeo..

[galaxy xr8]

Originally Posted by castellan

A 4 CYL falcon!
Holden tried that! with the VC commo.
They were waffling on that they were going to sell more 4cyl then the 6.
But they were rubbish and were no better on fuel then a 6 in the real world driving.
The falcon is way to heavy. and a turbo 4 would be stupid.

I think you will be very surprised, with comment's like your's, you obviously have no idea on the real world and what the Ecoboost posses, like someone has allready told you, thing's have improved somewhat since the '80's my friend, just watch this space.

[galaxy xr8]

Originally Posted by bingoTE50

I did say current Falcon drivers would not buy it.....

What will it achieve ? 200kw ? 8l/100 combined , Ron 98 fuel ? . What price ?- 5k cheaper ? Towing ability ? Torque lag ?
It still has to haul plenty of weight,I cannot see the point. Buy a Mondeo..

You obvioulsy missread or missed me, what do you think I am a non current falcon driver.......
I think you will be susprised at the ecoboosts potential with all the areas that you have covered.

[Luke Plaizier]

Here's a write-up on the Ecoboost 3.5V6 in the Taurus SHO.

http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor...0111-m1rp.html

I bet you that's the only time Jez will ever say anything nice about the weight of the Falcon - when it let's him say negative things about another Ford.


Lukeyson

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Luke Plaizier

Here's a write-up on the Ecoboost 3.5V6 in the Taurus SHO.

http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor...0111-m1rp.html




Lukeyson

Did anyone realize the weight of the Taurus? 2100kg, XR6 around 1700kg make Taurus look like a barge, yet again our Aussie version outshines the US.

[g220ba]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Did anyone realize the weight of the Taurus? 2100kg, XR6 around 1700kg make Taurus look like a barge, yet again our Aussie version outshines the US.

AWD will do that to a car.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by 84ltd

AWD will do that to a car.

To top it off Territory rwd 2005kg & 2085 kg for AWD version, this is the best part, with cast iron engine block. It does not make sense turning Australia into little yankee land. I really think people will vote with their feet if we lose what we have now, as I have said before, we have good products on the market now, Ford just has to wait till the mistakes of it's fore fathers runs it's course. GMH has made it's bed & has to lie in it for now, Toyota has found that Aussies are not interested in a large FWD as they fumble around trying to make a large FWD more appetizing as local content, Mitsubishi made a good v6 FWD & where is it now? dead & buried like the Falcon will be if released here in FWD

[Deco28]

Holden should have just detuned the 3.6l SIDI for the base models.

Check this economy out..

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/483...test-review/3/

9.6l/100km combined driving for the Statesman. Wowzers.

[Kamshaaft]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Did anyone realize the weight of the Taurus? 2100kg, XR6 around 1700kg make Taurus look like a barge, yet again our Aussie version outshines the US.

No surprise that pretty much every Yank or Canuck I've talked to that has at least some awareness of motoring has salivated all over the Falcon (particularly our XR6T & F6). A fair few of them love the Commodores too* would you believe it, especially the HSV models**. They must be desperate over there!

....That or we take our own automotive industry for granted.

*(though nowhere near the near-100% who would give their left AND their right nut for an XR6T in LHD).

**(thanks to Top Gear making the world aware of our kickass cars here I guess).

[bingoTE50]

Originally Posted by galaxy xr8

You obvioulsy missread or missed me, what do you think I am a non current falcon driver.......
I think you will be susprised at the ecoboosts potential with all the areas that you have covered.

My post was not particularly aimed at yourself,more the whole concept.
Perhaps if it was the turbo diesel out of the ranger it may be more to my liking , but not 4 cyl turbo petrol.
Anyway,it looks like we won't have much choice in the near future if todays reports are correct regarding the aussie Falcon .

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by castellan

A 4 CYL falcon!
Holden tried that! with the VC commo.
They were waffling on that they were going to sell more 4cyl then the 6.
But they were rubbish and were no better on fuel then a 6 in the real world driving.
The falcon is way to heavy. and a turbo 4 would be stupid.

All they did was cut 2 cylinders off the already gutless 202, making it essentially the same thing with a lot less power. What did they think was going to happen, it needed to be revved hard to go, and sucked the juice because it was based on the already ineffiecent 202. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it was never going to work, but thats Holdens brilliant engineering for you.

The turbo 4 to be used in Falcon is turbo and direct injection, makes peak torque at 1500 rpm and will make over 170 kw in a car that should be somehwere between 50 and 100kg lighter than a Falcon 6. It will work brilliantly, the European Ford S Max will be around the same weight with esentially the same engine and uses less than 8 litres per 100km.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

All they did was cut 2 cylinders off the already gutless 202, making it essentially the same thing with a lot less power. What did they think was going to happen, it needed to be revved hard to go, and sucked the juice because it was based on the already ineffiecent 202. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it was never going to work, but thats Holdens brilliant engineering for you.

The turbo 4 to be used in Falcon is turbo and direct injection, makes peak torque at 1500 rpm and will make over 170 kw in a car that should be somehwere between 50 and 100kg lighter than a Falcon 6. It will work brilliantly, the European Ford S Max will be around the same weight with esentially the same engine and uses less than 8 litres per 100km.

It may be trivial but it was toyota that made the stuff up four engine, as every engine had toyota written on the con rods,& based 0n 173 I think from memory.

[Bossxr8]

Doesn't change the fact that it was absolute garbage. They would have known it was going to fail, they would have just hoped it didn't.

It was also apparently rough as guts too because cutting 2 cylinders off an I6 to make a 4, and trying to make it rev harder to bring power up from nothing to barely adequate introduced a lot of vibration problems they couldn't overcome.

Holdens brilliant engineering strikes again.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Doesn't change the fact that it was absolute garbage. They would have known it was going to fail, they would have just hoped it didn't.

It was also apparently rough as guts too because cutting 2 cylinders off an I6 to make a 4, and trying to make it rev harder to bring power up from nothing to barely adequate introduced a lot of vibration problems they couldn't overcome.

Holdens brilliant engineering strikes again.

Oh right they were crap the amount of motors that I saw that just about cracked in half or blow smoke or knocked.. If I had a dollar for ever one. HEH HEH

[castellan]

The 2.0L ecoboost is aimed for fleet.

The holden starfire 4 was a 6 cyl 173 cut down. it came out in the 1978 UC torana and was so advanced that the 1980 VC blue motor was up dated from it.
The rods in the starfire 4 are the same as the blue 173.
And they did put starfire 4 in the toyota corona.

Galaxy v8 i think if you wanted a 4CYL, why not just get the mondeo. :togo:

[kezzer]

Originally Posted by Deco28

Holden should have just detuned the 3.6l SIDI for the base models.

Check this economy out..

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/483...test-review/3/

9.6l/100km combined driving for the Statesman. Wowzers.

Sorta of debunks this whole thread really