Australian Family Cars: We have gone so far backwards since 2016...

[Sprintey]

Originally Posted by Mechan1k

In the dry it is fine.

You need to be gentle in the wet ... 420Nm (on E10 .. more on PULP) at 2000rpm in the wet at the front wheels is ..... interesting to say the least.

If you tip it in with a bit of stick ... the torque vectoring is noticable as it will brake one wheel momentarily (nothing harsh) to pitch the weight to that outer front to get the most grip on it.

The 225/45R19 Bridgestones look a little undertyred for my liking ... but they do a decent job ... weird and expensive size .... I managed to get a screw in the corner tread block fairly new ... so had to get a new tyre.

Its a fairly comfy ride ... with a decent middle ground ... not overly hard or soft ... will definitely a feel a thud if you hit a harsh bump/pothole. But you can punt it around a nice piece of country road and have some fun. The way the engine/turbo is setup is for seamless flow of low-mid torque ... there is not top end in it ... it likes to upshift anyway before redline ... even in manual mode as well.

Its deceivingly quick around town .... not a racer though ... but I haven't really "flogged it" its not that sort of car really. You can manually shift with the "little" paddles while still in Auto (non-manual mode) ... if you decide you need a quick downshift or 2 or 3 to get your out of trouble ... and it will hold it for a short time ... but revert to Auto again if not further manual shift changes are noticed ... this I have found handy.

SPORT Mode feels weird and hangs onto gears too long .... for the way all the torque is low ... NORMAL is best for daily use.

I could go on ... my wife drives it more than I do though .... when I get a chance I take it out though.

Great description! Last trip over west we decided to hang a right at Salmon Gums and went backroads gravel after heavy rain in slushy mushy conditions, coming out just before the Nickel mine at Ravy... Did that in Dad's old VY and was wishing we had the AWD Terry which would have chomped the conditions and tracked straight and true. I can imagine the interesting wet road experience, I really can! The VY had it's moments!

[smoo]

Originally Posted by prydey

How's the torque, payload and tow capacity of a base falcon ute?

Navara is nothing special as far as utes go but still has 450nn @1500rpm.

Let's not let the facts ruin a good story though.

What facts… you aren’t lugging any highly strung low capacity common rail diesel loaded over a hill at 1500rpm, despite what the on paper figure/marketing department want you to believe.
They have an extremely narrow usable rev range if you want them to keep up with the flow of traffic. Then when you do the NVH levels are through the roof and fuel consumption isn’t much better.
A Barra will walk one under any condition, mainly thanks to 200kw. The only downfall is fuel consumption.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

Great description! Last trip over west we decided to hang a right at Salmon Gums and went backroads gravel after heavy rain in slushy mushy conditions, coming out just before the Nickel mine at Ravy... Did that in Dad's old VY and was wishing we had the AWD Terry which would have chomped the conditions and tracked straight and true. I can imagine the interesting wet road experience, I really can! The VY had it's moments!

Unintentionally did that drive last year when maps directed me that way.
Nice country.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by smoo

What facts… you aren’t lugging any highly strung low capacity common rail diesel loaded over a hill at 1500rpm, despite what the on paper figure/marketing department want you to believe.
They have an extremely narrow usable rev range if you want them to keep up with the flow of traffic. Then when you do the NVH levels are through the roof and fuel consumption isn’t much better.
A Barra will walk one under any condition, mainly thanks to 200kw. The only downfall is fuel consumption.

I used the navara as an example as that was the car mentioned but in the context of the title I'm just pointing out that you can't just cherry pick one aspect of a car and claim we've 'gone backwards'!

I've towed with an FG xr6 6sp and a diesel territory. The Territory runs rings around the falcon. About to buy an Everest so I guess I'll find out how far backwards we've gone with family cars. I have a feeling I'm not going to miss the territory, or think I've gone backwards.

Those who think the falcon is the pinnacle of family motoring need to get out more.

[Sprintey]

Originally Posted by smoo

Unintentionally did that drive last year when maps directed me that way.
Nice country.

image

Yeah you gotta watch maps sometimes, it can send you on a real adventure! Love the salmon gums (the pink trunked trees) out that way. Beautiful.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by prydey

I used the navara as an example as that was the car mentioned but in the context of the title I'm just pointing out that you can't just cherry pick one aspect of a car and claim we've 'gone backwards'!

I've towed with an FG xr6 6sp and a diesel territory. The Territory runs rings around the falcon. About to buy an Everest so I guess I'll find out how far backwards we've gone with family cars. I have a feeling in not going to miss the territory, or think I've gone backwards.

Those who think the falcon is the pinnacle of family motoring need to get out more.

I think a valid comparison is made when the substitute family vehicle in 2023 is dual cab, most of which aren’t used for their intended purpose and are a step back from a Falcon or Territory for normal daily driving.
The new v6 ranger might be a different story but a Triton, Navara, Hilux etc. is the automotive equivalent of running finger nails down a chalk board.
I’d hope the Everest is a better vehicle than the Territory, after all the terry is pretty much a facelifted 20 year old vehicle.

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by smoo

What facts… you aren’t lugging any highly strung low capacity common rail diesel loaded over a hill at 1500rpm, despite what the on paper figure/marketing department want you to believe.
They have an extremely narrow usable rev range if you want them to keep up with the flow of traffic. Then when you do the NVH levels are through the roof and fuel consumption isn’t much better.
A Barra will walk one under any condition, mainly thanks to 200kw. The only downfall is fuel consumption.

Not that I'm attempting to contribute to the argument, rather my observations driving Falcon's back-to-back with Ranger's in either 2.0, 2.2 or 3.2 guise.............

I can drive that big 4.0 under 2000 rpm all day long while keeping up with traffic / not being a Sunday driver. It's smooth, quite and refined. Yes, it sucks fuel around town, but then so do the overweight Ranger and Everest I might add, many have complained about a lack of economy with the 3.2 in particular.

That's not really possible in a 2.0 or 2.2 diesel Ranger, they are entirely reliant on boost in a VERY narrow powerband, the 2.2 in particular. The 3.2 was a bit different in that it had more natural off boost torque, but any time you needed more than gentle throttle, it was a very vocal companion. The 2.0 is much more refined, but its working hard most of the time, which the 10-speed facilitates.

What's interesting though is how we have not really improved in fuel economy over the last 10 to 15 years. Where the number one and two sellers were large 6-cylinder cars sucking plenty of fuel, those have been replaced with large, heavy pickup trucks that suck plenty of fuel. Go figure.

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by ToryMikey

So at work today I noticed Bendigo Nissan have a new ad out.

They were plugging the Navara relentlessly. “With up to 140 kilowatts of power!”

And all I could think of was the base Falcon ute (and sedan) eclipsed that thirty years ago. We haven’t just gone backwards since 2016. We’ve gone backwards since 1993.

But what did diesels produce in 1993 ......not a lot , apples to apples

[ToryMikey]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

Not that I'm attempting to contribute to the argument, rather my observations driving Falcon's back-to-back with Ranger's in either 2.0, 2.2 or 3.2 guise.............

I can drive that big 4.0 under 2000 rpm all day long while keeping up with traffic / not being a Sunday driver. It's smooth, quite and refined. Yes, it sucks fuel around town, but then so do the overweight Ranger and Everest I might add, many have complained about a lack of economy with the 3.2 in particular.

That's not really possible in a 2.0 or 2.2 diesel Ranger, they are entirely reliant on boost in a VERY narrow powerband, the 2.2 in particular. The 3.2 was a bit different in that it had more natural off boost torque, but any time you needed more than gentle throttle, it was a very vocal companion. The 2.0 is much more refined, but its working hard most of the time, which the 10-speed facilitates.

What's interesting though is how we have not really improved in fuel economy over the last 10 to 15 years. Where the number one and two sellers were large 6-cylinder cars sucking plenty of fuel, those have been replaced with large, heavy pickup trucks that suck plenty of fuel. Go figure.

Yup exactly. Not that the petrol Thais are any better. Ranger obviously doesn’t have a petrol engine option, but base 2.7 Hilux gulps fuel, not helped by needing to rev the guts out of it - unlike any Falcon six since the crossflow days. 4.0 V6 Hilux is even worse, but at least it has power, but at that point why not just go for the Barra which is more reliable, easier to service and doesn’t sludge?

Your comments on fuel economy at the end bite harder when you consider diesel is much pricier than petrol on a per litre basis. They bite even harder when we were constantly being told by the media that nobody wants those fuel inefficient Australian dinosaurs…

[ToryMikey]

Originally Posted by PooDog

But what did diesels produce in 1993 ......not a lot , apples to apples

Who bought diesel utes in 1993? Almost nobody, because Falcon utes drove so much better. Ironic considering the 1979 era design Ford stuck with in those days…

These days we have no choice.

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by ToryMikey

Who bought diesel utes in 1993? Almost nobody, because Falcon utes drove so much better. Ironic considering the 1979 era design Ford stuck with in those days…

These days we have no choice.

A lot in NZ because diesel was half the price of petrol

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

Not that I'm attempting to contribute to the argument, rather my observations driving Falcon's back-to-back with Ranger's in either 2.0, 2.2 or 3.2 guise.............

I can drive that big 4.0 under 2000 rpm all day long while keeping up with traffic / not being a Sunday driver. It's smooth, quite and refined. Yes, it sucks fuel around town, but then so do the overweight Ranger and Everest I might add, many have complained about a lack of economy with the 3.2 in particular.

That's not really possible in a 2.0 or 2.2 diesel Ranger, they are entirely reliant on boost in a VERY narrow powerband, the 2.2 in particular. The 3.2 was a bit different in that it had more natural off boost torque, but any time you needed more than gentle throttle, it was a very vocal companion. The 2.0 is much more refined, but its working hard most of the time, which the 10-speed facilitates.

What's interesting though is how we have not really improved in fuel economy over the last 10 to 15 years. Where the number one and two sellers were large 6-cylinder cars sucking plenty of fuel, those have been replaced with large, heavy pickup trucks that suck plenty of fuel. Go figure.

Have a space cab PX Ranger company car, 6sp auto 2.2L job.

Turning right across Hume Highway - get on the brake and stall it up so it actually moves rather than creep off the line until it builds boost, we've got the thing either at or exceeding GVM with its service body and its ****ing hopeless.

We're on its second transmission, and coming up for its third soon I reckon, she's been getting hot and going into limp mode with warm weather, its got 150,000km on the clock.

We probably should have a light truck