First Drive: Falcon Ecoboost - Page 13

Road_Warrior · 01-02-2012, 02:14 PM

There could be some other bits and pieces on the XT that we don't know of yet, like EPAS, underbody aero splitters and the like.

Then again, why put that sort of stuff on the XT and not the others...

Brazen · 01-02-2012, 02:15 PM

I doubt weight is the difference, otherwise the G6 and G6E would have different fuel ratings.

I think it comes down to the low rolling resistance tyres and the narrower rims being more aerodynamic

dimka100 · 01-02-2012, 02:21 PM

It is very possible … unfortunately the originally set out goal of a 20% fuel consumption reduction has not materialised across the other Falcon models …

While I still think this engine will be more fuel efficient that the I6, it is very likely that in real world scenarios the difference will end up around 10%, whether that’s enough to convince buyers time will tell …

I think it will be interesting to read some independent reviews on the drivability of the EcoBoost in various conditions with various fuel grades.

z80 · 01-02-2012, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPFS1

some info for you..

Falcon EcoBoost specs

179kW @ 5,500
353Nm @ 2,000

8.1L/100km for XT (192g/km CO2)

8.5L/100km for G6 and G6E (201g/km CO2)

No price premium.

Also a minor change to EcoLPi which has further improved economy and emissions.

Available Q2.

34 miles per gallon?

I hope it's true but sadly I feel that like most car manufacturers claims they are idealised on a "cycle" that never represents real world conditions.

blueoval · 01-02-2012, 02:34 PM

Im gonna wait for another independent review on this car. The figures look good, but I'd like to see what other reviewers have to say about the figures and how close they get to the factory figures.

Other than that, it still looks pretty good from where I am sitting.

EgoFG · 01-02-2012, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z80

34 miles per gallon?

I hope it's true but sadly I feel that like most car manufacturers claims they are idealised on a "cycle" that never represents real world conditions.

well - that is what the rules say.
It is not the cars manufacturers fault that the rules are not as "real world" as you would like.

blueoval · 01-02-2012, 03:03 PM

Sorry if this sounds cynical, or contradictory and Im not trying to bury my head in the sand or put rose colored glasses on, but some of the comments here sound as if they don't want this ecoboost 4cyl falcon to be seen as real potential by trying to find fault with it.

perhaps I am looking at it the wrong way. I don't know. I apologize for my own ignorance if this is the case.

falconnut · 01-02-2012, 03:23 PM

Hopefully the efficiency will get better as Ford Australia refine the engine.

As it stands now its the same as mine or a little more thirsty.

blueoval · 01-02-2012, 05:23 PM

posted from other ecoboost falcon thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

Greenvehicleguide has the figures up and they are impressive- LINK

Ecoboost gives fuel economy figures similar to Diesel Territory

Ecoboost Falcon:
Combined - 8.1 l/100km
Urban - 11.8 l/100 km
Extra Urban - 6.0 l/100 km

Compared to 4.0 XT:
Combined - 9.9 l/100km
Urban - 14.6 l/100 km
Extra Urban - 7.2 l/100 km

3.0 SIDI Omega:
Combined - 8.9 l/100km
Urban - 12.3 l/100 km
Extra Urban - 6.9 l/100 km

Hally · 01-02-2012, 07:05 PM

Maybe this has been covered in this thread (or others) but here goes:

If the EB Falcon is successful with punters, and actually takes sales from the I6, rather than increase the overall sales of the Falcon, is there a point when the Geelong engine factory does not become viable? All manufacturing needs to have critical mass otherwise it is money down the drain.

Any of the insiders or more educated have an opinion or thoughts on this?

Road_Warrior · 01-02-2012, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hally

Maybe this has been covered in this thread (or others) but here goes:

If the EB Falcon is successful with punters, and actually takes sales from the I6, rather than increase the overall sales of the Falcon, is there a point when the Geelong engine factory does not become viable? All manufacturing needs to have critical mass otherwise it is money down the drain.

Any of the insiders or more educated have an opinion or thoughts on this?

There is no doubt that with the TDCi in the Terri and if this engine takes off, the I6 will be under pressure.

Given that Ford owns all the facilities and plant and equipment costs are more or less amortised, they could probably get away with producing small numbers of them as it wouldn't cost a lot, but the real issue comes if you have no more vehicles to put them in. Like a next generation Falcon for starters.

In the short to medium term however, the greatest impact on the I6 will be that investment to keep it upgraded and current would be curtailed or even cut off for lack of volume.

ivorya · 01-02-2012, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z80

34 miles per gallon?

I hope it's true but sadly I feel that like most car manufacturers claims they are idealised on a "cycle" that never represents real world conditions.

You Know, Many people also doubted the FG I6 claims when they first came out. Mag testers took them for a spin and shat themselves cause, The I6 wasn't surposed to better a 3L V6 from GM, with all that $$ they spent on their brand-new engine.

I'm sure, when they hit the road, there will be many people on here that - 1. betters the number . 2. equals the number. 3. has a higher number.

Lets wait and see.

Yellow_Festiva · 01-02-2012, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivorya

You Know, Many people also doubted the FG I6 claims when they first came out. Mag testers took them for a spin and shat themselves cause, The I6 wasn't surposed to better a 3L V6 from GM, with all that $$ they spent on their brand-new engine.

I'm sure, when they hit the road, there will be many people on here that - 1. betters the number . 2. equals the number. 3. has a higher number.

Lets wait and see.

Exactly. I have bettered every factory consumption rating on every car I have owned. Others in the same car can't get close. After seeing how they drove, I knew why.

Again... well done to Ford.

Brazen · 01-02-2012, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivorya

You Know, Many people also doubted the FG I6 claims when they first came out. Mag testers took them for a spin and shat themselves cause, The I6 wasn't surposed to better a 3L V6 from GM, with all that $$ they spent on their brand-new engine.

I'm sure, when they hit the road, there will be many people on here that - 1. betters the number . 2. equals the number. 3. has a higher number.

Lets wait and see.

I drive these cars a lot and there is no way the 3L commodore uses more fuel than a Falcon in normal driving, maybe around a race track or towing or something, but then again a Prius uses more fuel than a M3 around the Top Gear track.

phillyc · 01-02-2012, 08:40 PM

Remember that TDCi Terri has 8.8 and 9.0L/100km in AWD depending on model. The result is is skewed because the ADR test has weight bands and this affects the loadings applied to the testing rollers.

I expect much the same is the cause of the differences in results between the Ecoboost models.

By the way 6.0L/100km economy is unreal. IMPRESSIVE!

z80 · 01-02-2012, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivorya

......I'm sure, when they hit the road, there will be many people on here that - 1. betters the number . 2. equals the number. 3. has a higher number.

Lets wait and see.

Yes...but let's stop justifying/claiming the fuel economy of the EcoBoost 4 cylinder by comparing it to 6 cylinder Holden rivals.

ivorya · 01-02-2012, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z80

Yes...but let's stop justifying/claiming the fuel economy of the EcoBoost 4 cylinder by comparing it to 6 cylinder Holden rivals.

But, we are just doing what the media will do.

Arn't We??

Falcon and Commodore are rivals. When commodore comes out with Volt electric engine, it'll be compared against Ecoboost 4, It'll just happen.

No Use complaining.

Bossxr8 · 01-02-2012, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyc

Remember that TDCi Terri has 8.8 and 9.0L/100km in AWD depending on model. The result is is skewed because the ADR test has weight bands and this affects the loadings applied to the testing rollers.

Thats correct, the weight difference between the models must be on the threshold for the G6 to cross to another weight class, which pushes economy up.

Same goes for the EcoLPi which is slightly higher on some models?

Nikked · 01-02-2012, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z80

Yes...but let's stop justifying/claiming the fuel economy of the EcoBoost 4 cylinder by comparing it to 6 cylinder Holden rivals.

But that is the competitor...

the SIDI look quite poor now...

jpd80 · 01-02-2012, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brazen

I drive these cars a lot and there is no way the 3L commodore uses more fuel than a Falcon in normal driving, maybe around a race track or towing or something, but then again a Prius uses more fuel than a M3 around the Top Gear track.

Oh, I'm sure that the pro Holden Drive magazine will repeat their Bathurst challenge
with all the main contenders from Ecoboost to I-6 and of course the two Holden V6s

babyf6 · 01-02-2012, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paxton

Take a wild guess... image

I've been following the progress of the EcoBoost Falcon since 2008, and for a while, I was worried that it wouldn't fly. It will. This is not a Starfire Commodore. This is a throughly modern power plant, and will actually offer real world fuel savings that the 3.0 Commodore can't. Fortunately, they will actually be advertising this, unlike the treatment that the EcoLPI Falcon is getting.

Unlike the treatment that most Falcon models are getting

Buntz · 02-02-2012, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

There is no doubt that with the TDCi in the Terri and if this engine takes off, the I6 will be under pressure.

Given that Ford owns all the facilities and plant and equipment costs are more or less amortised, they could probably get away with producing small numbers of them as it wouldn't cost a lot, but the real issue comes if you have no more vehicles to put them in. Like a next generation Falcon for starters.

In the short to medium term however, the greatest impact on the I6 will be that investment to keep it upgraded and current would be curtailed or even cut off for lack of volume.

Euro V comes in before current Falcon is retired. So they will either upgrade it... or stop it altogether. Maybe they will stop it if they can get enough EB's from Spain.

XWGT · 21-02-2012, 11:26 AM

Ok so have there been any further road tests, reviews, commentary about this?

Feb is almost gone............

Mad_Pom · 21-02-2012, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

Euro V comes in before current Falcon is retired. So they will either upgrade it... or stop it altogether. Maybe they will stop it if they can get enough EB's from Spain.

If your vehicle is in production you can sell Euro IV upto Nov 2016. That is the plan that is missing - what happens post Nov 2016?

Fev · 21-02-2012, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brazen

I drive these cars a lot and there is no way the 3L commodore uses more fuel than a Falcon in normal driving, maybe around a race track or towing or something, but then again a Prius uses more fuel than a M3 around the Top Gear track.

You never saw the testing they did on Bathurst? 1000kms at the legal speed limit around Bathurst (60km/hr) - The Commodore used significantly more than the 4.0L petrol. There is no "racetrack" inspired driving here, just sticking to the speed limit driving like you normally would. Obeying the road rules etc. so gets straights, hills, rolling, braking, cornering etc - an all equal test to each car.

To quote
http://www.theage.com.au/news/motori...11.html?page=6

Quote:

Now for the really interesting bit – crunching the numbers. On paper, the Commodore has a significant economy advantage, smacking the Falcon to the tune of more than 8 per cent.
According to the trip computers, the Falcon has delivered a surprise result. The Falcon's trip computer is claiming it has used just 9.9L/100km, which is less than the official government claim of 10.1L/100km. It's an impressive result for a car with a big, less advanced engine.
The petrol pump backs up the claim, with our calculators suggesting the Ford used 10.02L/100km.
There's no way to sugar-coat it. The Commodore was thirstier. Despite the new direct injection technology, the Holden's new 3.0-litre engine used 11.09L/100km of fuel (almost identical to the trip computer's claim of 11.0L/100km). That's not only 19 per cent more fuel than its official claim but 10 per cent more than the Falcon.

1TUFFUTE · 21-02-2012, 04:06 PM

i cant believe the ecoboost falcons are less then 2months away and there arent any more articles or comparos out...whatthe?? I would have thought thats all theyre thinking at the moment with the new gas falcons and commadores out just recently