First Drive: Falcon Ecoboost

[Spanrz]

Ok, gonna add my 20cents worth.

Whats the ecoboost Turbo 4 cylinder like with 600kg in-tow like?

Granted all these tests are done with one driver with empty cars, but really, there "is" a huge difference between empty and loaded.
Particularly, when the Holden SIDI came out touting "Oh drive to Sydney on one Fuel Tank". But wait, that was done with 1 driver, empty.

We need to put some weight in these cars then come back with results, then we can compare apples with apples on performance.
(no point touting that a 4cyl turbo can do stuff empty, but put a load on it and it can't do a thing).

More to the point, I go to Bathurst races with a fully loaded car, will it get me there, through all those hills, or is it going to struggle?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Spanrz

We need to put some weight in these cars then come back with results, then we can compare apples with apples on performance.
(no point touting that a 4cyl turbo can do stuff empty, but put a load on it and it can't do a thing).

1) With 366 nm of torque from 1700-4500, the engine is gonna pull like an AU 4.0.
2) It actually has more torque than the the FG E-Gas 4.0 4-speed auto combo had....

But by all mean, keep being a doubting Thomas......

[Bossxr8]

One of the tests the journos did was to load the car with some big blokes and then test it, and they didn't think it made much difference.

With at least an additional 60nm, maybe more, than the Holden 3 litre SISI engine it should have no problems hauling a load.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

One of the tests the journos did was to load the car with some big blokes and then test it, and they didn't think it made much difference.

With at least an additional 60nm, maybe more, than the Holden 3 litre SISI engine it should have no problems hauling a load.

Never mind Boss,
All the proof in the world won't convince some that a 2.0 turbo can nearly equal the performance of the 4.0 I-6
Some stooge will come back complaining he can carry 10 'lations and tow a 5-tonne horse float therefore it fails...

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Spanrz

Ok, gonna add my 20cents worth.

Whats the ecoboost Turbo 4 cylinder like with 600kg in-tow like?

We need to put some weight in these cars then come back with results, then we can compare apples with apples on performance.
(no point touting that a 4cyl turbo can do stuff empty, but put a load on it and it can't do a thing).

More to the point, I go to Bathurst races with a fully loaded car, will it get me there, through all those hills, or is it going to struggle?

good to see the cylinder count stigma is alive and well. like jpd says, it makes more power and similar torque (probably wider spread) than a AU falcon. would you doubt the towing capability of an AU?

Originally Posted by Spanrz

Granted all these tests are done with one driver with empty cars, but really, there "is" a huge difference between empty and loaded.
Particularly, when the Holden SIDI came out touting "Oh drive to Sydney on one Fuel Tank". But wait, that was done with 1 driver, empty.

commodore has a 73L tank. holden claimed 900km on a single tank. 73L divide by 900km = 8.1L/100km. nothing special there for highway running. with 4 people and luggage i can get sub 8L/100km in my FG.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by prydey

good to see the cylinder count stigma is alive and well. like jpd says, it makes more power and similar torque (probably wider spread) than a AU falcon. would you doubt the towing capability of an AU?



commodore has a 73L tank. holden claimed 900km on a single tank. 73L divide by 900km = 8.1L/100km. nothing special there for highway running. with 4 people and luggage i can get sub 8L/100km in my FG.

Remember the 1000 km Bathurst trial Drive did between the Omega SIDI 3.0 and the Falcon 4.0 I-6,
wait until they do the 2012 version with SIDI 3.0 and Ecoboost 2.0, Holden are on a hiding to nothing.....

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by jpd80

1) With 366 nm of torque from 1700-4500, the engine is gonna pull like an AU 4.0.
2) It actually has more torque than the the FG E-Gas 4.0 4-speed auto combo had....

But by all mean, keep being a doubting Thomas......

I must have missed it... is that the official number?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Remember the 1000 km Bathurst trial Drive did between the Omega SIDI 3.0 and the Falcon 4.0 I-6,
wait until they do the 2012 version with SIDI 3.0 and Ecoboost 2.0, Holden are on a hiding to nothing.....

all i'm saying is there was/is nothing wrong with holdens claimed fuel mileage. hell, i used to get over 900km to a tank (72L) in my ef xr6 wagon. some people like to rubbish claims just because they don't like the brand.

from memory sidi 3.0 urban figure is up around 12L/100km. i think too many people think the combined figure is the urban figure.

the bathurst test didn't really disprove anything holden claimed. it just showed that falcon is already very good.

[FPV GTHO]

I cant recall if it was the Bathurst test, but there was one between a SIDI 3L and a Falcon and the SIDI returned higher than quoted figures whilst the Falcon returned lower than claimed.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

I must have missed it... is that the official number?

No, that torque figure is from the Explorer...

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by prydey

all i'm saying is there was/is nothing wrong with holdens claimed fuel mileage. hell, i used to get over 900km to a tank (72L) in my ef xr6 wagon. some people like to rubbish claims just because they don't like the brand.

from memory sidi 3.0 urban figure is up around 12L/100km. i think too many people think the combined figure is the urban figure.

the bathurst test didn't really disprove anything holden claimed. it just showed that falcon is already very good.

All I'm sayin; is that a blatantly pro Holden website did an absolute hatchet job on the Omega 3.0 SIDI and praised the falcon 4.0..

A lot of people missed the significance of that point, I think Toby's gang are very non=plused over the baby V6 Commodore,
if they are true to Form, they will be lining the Ecoboost 2.0 up against the 3.0 SIDI, the fur will fly if Holden loses again....

[Rodge]

^^ I agree, Drivel is blatently biased and I for one smell a Rat in terms of bribes being paid and I don't say that lightly, their overt bias put me off their site completly.
On topic it seems some people still don't understand the simple concept of a "wide spread of torque" and what it means in real world driving and also fail to understand that most engines spend the vast majority of their time crusing under 2500 revs. Wonder what Holden's sisi's torque output is crusing at 110 k.p.h. in top gear doing 1700 revs, would it pull the skin off a rice pudding at those revs OTOH the ecoboost will be making maximum torque, quite a simple concept to come to terms with I would have thought and a significantly different and more satisfying driving experience and that's before we even get on to comparing the Falc's other attributes with Holden's steering, handling or its gearbox.
Circa 60 kg's weight off the nose will be very handy too

[prydey]

Originally Posted by jpd80

All I'm sayin; is that a blatantly pro Holden website did an absolute hatchet job on the Omega 3.0 SIDI and praised the falcon 4.0..

A lot of people missed the significance of that point, I think Toby's gang are very non=plused over the baby V6 Commodore,
if they are true to Form, they will be lining the Ecoboost 2.0 up against the 3.0 SIDI, the fur will fly if Holden loses again....

i'm not pro holden and love my fords. i just don't believe in rubbishing their claims simply because of a badge on the bonnet. the claimed fuel figures (urban and extra urban) seem realistic enough to me.

i'm sure i could drive a 3.0lsidi and a falcon around bathurst and get different results. i'm not really concerned with that test. most people rubbish the '900km up the highway' claims. i'm just saying there is no need to think they are not realistic. that is a potential distance based on its extra urban fuel figure multiplied by fuel tank capacity.

ford do the exact same thing with territory, advertising 1000km range. it is a theoretical figure. they test their cars by the ADR81/02 method and then can legally claim anything they want based on those figures. whether the roads in this country will allow you to replicate those figures in real life is another story. my falcon has a theoretical range of 900km, but fact is, i'll never run the tank that dry and the roads aren't flat everywhere and often it depends on the spacing of the towns.

the ecoboost economy is largely speculation. the car is yet to be released. sure, you can have a fairly educated guess, but its a little unfair to put down the opposition when their claims are pretty realistic, and pump up the tyres of a yet to be proven car. i also have no doubt that ecoboost should be able to better the 8.9L/100km combined figure of the sidi. i doubt it will impact too much on commodore sales though.

[csv8]

Cars Guide, 31/12/11, Courier Mail says "it won't be released until April." It keeps getting delayed ??? First, November 2011, then January 2012 now April 2012. June 2012 ??????

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by csv8

Cars Guide, 31/12/11, Courier Mail says "it won't be released until April." It keeps getting delayed ??? First, November 2011, then January 2012 now April 2012. June 2012 ??????

Don't rely on a journos opinion. Go on what Ford have said.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by prydey

i'm not pro holden and love my fords. i just don't believe in rubbishing their claims simply because of a badge on the bonnet. the claimed fuel figures (urban and extra urban) seem realistic enough to me.

i'm sure i could drive a 3.0lsidi and a falcon around bathurst and get different results. i'm not really concerned with that test. most people rubbish the '900km up the highway' claims. i'm just saying there is no need to think they are not realistic. that is a potential distance based on its extra urban fuel figure multiplied by fuel tank capacity.

ford do the exact same thing with territory, advertising 1000km range. it is a theoretical figure. they test their cars by the ADR81/02 method and then can legally claim anything they want based on those figures. whether the roads in this country will allow you to replicate those figures in real life is another story. my falcon has a theoretical range of 900km, but fact is, i'll never run the tank that dry and the roads aren't flat everywhere and often it depends on the spacing of the towns.

the ecoboost economy is largely speculation. the car is yet to be released. sure, you can have a fairly educated guess, but its a little unfair to put down the opposition when their claims are pretty realistic, and pump up the tyres of a yet to be proven car. i also have no doubt that ecoboost should be able to better the 8.9L/100km combined figure of the sidi. i doubt it will impact too much on commodore sales though.

What I'm saying is that when the Omega gets away from anything like constant highway speed on cruise,
its fuel economy reverts to a similar level achieved by the 3.6 SIDI V6 and 4.0 I-6....... So I'm curious as to
how the Ecoboost Falcon will stack up in a good head to head on highway and mixed running, just to see
where the benefits really are, city or highway?

I'm a touch dubious about fuel economy tests as manufacturers are open to "gaming tests" with recent history
from Europe suggests that smaller capacity engines, especially turbo units are able to produce "beautiful numbers.."

An example of this is clearly depicted in the current Mondeo where the 2.0 EB has a much better combined economy
than the base 2.3 I-4 and 6-speed auto. Until we get some real world experience, doubts will remain with buyers..

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Don't rely on a journos opinion. Go on what Ford have said.

When do they go into production?? You got to figure it will be about a month after that date??

[prydey]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I'm a touch dubious about fuel economy tests as manufacturers are open to "gaming tests" with recent history
from Europe suggests that smaller capacity engines, especially turbo units are able to produce "beautiful numbers.."

An example of this is clearly depicted in the current Mondeo where the 2.0 EB has a much better combined economy
than the base 2.3 I-4 and 6-speed auto. Until we get some real world experience, doubts will remain with buyers..

these small turbo engines have characteristics similar to diesel. a lot of torque very early in the rev range means much less throttle percentage to get moving and maintain movement. also throttle response should be improved. its the secret behind small capacity turbos. i don't know the specs on the turbo but i'd imagine its fairly small, so next to no lag and spools up quickly.

[1TUFFUTE]

why bother even talking about it...i mean seriously.....we all know every new idea out of ford recently has been nothing but brilliant....and thats why there the only non obama propped car maker in usa and we have brilliant gear hwre aswell. dont worry these engines will be awesome for the falcon. we know that....its everyone else that doesnt thats the problem...and crappy journos tend not to help ford of recent

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by prydey

these small turbo engines have characteristics similar to diesel. a lot of torque very early in the rev range means much less throttle percentage to get moving and maintain movement. also throttle response should be improved. its the secret behind small capacity turbos. i don't know the specs on the turbo but i'd imagine its fairly small, so next to no lag and spools up quickly.

They also fit a RWD perfectly. I have driven plenty of FWD cars in my life and always thought for most 'normal' powered cars it does not make a lot of difference whether they are FWD or RWD in city driving...until I spent a week in a front wheel drive 1.8TSI Audi (Audi's EcoBoost). With all that torque down low these engines are begging for RWD. Ecoboost Falcon will drive better I think than those new breed front wheel drive torquey Volvos, Audis, VWs and Peugoets.

The bloody Audi with all that torque on tap would just scrabble everywhere, it wasnt an issue of torque steer it was just getting traction right through those front wheels. Likewise those big torquey diesels are just crying out for rear wheel drive platforms.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Brazen

They also fit a RWD perfectly. I have driven plenty of FWD cars in my life and always thought for most 'normal' powered cars it does not make a lot of difference whether they are FWD or RWD in city driving...until I spent a week in a front wheel drive 1.8TSI Audi (Audi's EcoBoost). With all that torque down low these engines are begging for RWD.

The bloody Audi with all that torque on tap would just scrabble everywhere, it wasnt an issue of torque steer it was just getting traction right through those front wheels. Likewise those big torquey diesels are just crying out for a rear wheel drive platforms.

Lots of torque down low in a FWD car is a big mistake, especially if you're replacing a heavy V6 with a lot lighter Turbo I-4,
the loss in downforce and the increased in torque exacerbates an ever worsening traction problem
especially on roads that are a little damp....

Ecoboost Falcon Vs Ecoboost Mondeo on a rainy day, the Mondy would need AWD to keep up...

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Lots of torque down low in a FWD car is a big mistake, especially if you're replacing a heavy V6 with a lot lighter Turbo I-4,
the loss in downforce and the increased in torque exacerbates an ever worsening traction problem
especially on roads that are a little damp....

Ecoboost Falcon Vs Ecoboost Mondeo on a rainy day, the Mondy would need AWD to keep up...

Yeah good point about their being less weight up front on these cars with the new gen turbo 4s...even more reason to go RWD.

[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.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________

[Falc'man]

deja vu

[prydey]

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.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________

my neighbour just asked me why i was running, and i said, because the sky is falling, so now we're both running.....

[prydey]

anyone know any specifics about the turbo operation in regards to revs? when does it spool up?

when cruising, whats the maximum revs you can drive at before its actually on boost? does it start boosting from early on, or will you be able to cruise at light throttle at 100 off boost?

not sure if anyone actually knows and will this impact economy?

my brother has had a few nissan stagea's and whilst they're not anywhere close to being in the same mould, he could never get that great economy at 100/110 because it would be on boost, whereas at about 80/90 it would be so much better.

just wondering.

[chevypower]

that's like saying a 6 or 8 cyl will never get good economy because all 6 or 8 cylinders will always be running. The EB gets better fuel economy because there is less loss in efficiency from running a smaller engine. Fewer and smaller moving parts.

[prydey]

not really. there's a few 6 and 8 cylinder engines around that have cylinder shut down technology because when you are cruising, you don't need all the power the engine can create.

turbo's create power by forcing the combustion chamber full of air. more air = more fuel. this only happens when the turbo is spooling. if you can cruise and the turbo isn't spooling, it will be cheaper than if it is spooling.

thats my novice understanding.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by prydey

not really. there's a few 6 and 8 cylinder engines around that have cylinder shut down technology because when you are cruising, you don't need all the power the engine can create.

turbo's create power by forcing the combustion chamber full of air. more air = more fuel. this only happens when the turbo is spooling. if you can cruise and the turbo isn't spooling, it will be cheaper than if it is spooling.

thats my novice understanding.

There is another function on light and part throttle where the inlet valve is held open longer as the piston is rising,
this acts the same as variable displacement where a 2.0 liter engine can actually act like a much smaller engine
like a 1.4, in this application, you either need to have a much higher static compression (2.0 DI) or have a turbo
slightly boosting to return dynamic compression. Both of these functions called Atkinson and Miller are part of today's engines.

It's incredible what manufacturers can do these days with sophisticated software.

(note to my generation: high compression Cleveland with longer duration cam was kind of like Atkinson in that it
improved engine efficiency by increasing the mid and upper range torque, modern engines now cover the low end with VCT..)

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by prydey

not really. there's a few 6 and 8 cylinder engines around that have cylinder shut down technology because when you are cruising, you don't need all the power the engine can create.

turbo's create power by forcing the combustion chamber full of air. more air = more fuel. this only happens when the turbo is spooling. if you can cruise and the turbo isn't spooling, it will be cheaper than if it is spooling.

thats my novice understanding.

the shutdown technology minimizes air and fuel intake when it shuts down half of its cylinders, but it does not gain efficiency because all of the parts are still moving. You are right that if the turbos do not spool, the engine will not suck in as much fuel. The smaller turbo engine is more efficient because you do not waste as much energy moving bigger pistons up and down. With the EcoBoost, the if the rpm were equal to a non turbo version of the same engine, the EcoBoost would consume more fuel with the turbos spooling. But to get the same power, less rpm would be needed. On the EcoBoost, the turbos help with low-end torque with minimal throttle input.