Would you drive a 2.5L 6cyl Falcon? (or a 3.5L V8 for that matter...)

[Steffo]

Capacity alone won't make an engine economical you know....

[The MaDDeSTMaN]

Originally Posted by slection

One of the main reasons that the 3.2 was dropped for the EAII was that it used the same amount of fuel as the 3.9, while making 30 less kw's or something :

According to http://www.deleted link/portal/kb.ph..._num=4&start=0 -

Three in-line six cylinder engines were initially available; a 3.2 litre single-point injected (aka throttle body injected) engine, a 3.9 litre single-point, and the 3.9 litre multipoint (MPI). The 3.2 was dropped later in 1988 because in addition to the top dog 3.9 multipoint delivering over 50% more power, it actually used no more fuel in the process!

So I think there would have to be other changes, not just reducing the huge stroke, otherwise it wouldn't be worth the effort.

[mcflux]

(marcosambrose -->) V6?!? And how much do you expect customers to willingly shell out for these imported engines?

Hmm, let's buy an econo car that's more expensive to buy than the 4.0 version!

(maddestman -->) Well, the 3.2 was a CFI setup. Maybe an MPFI conversion would make an uber-econo EA? Would be a mad bus... :

-Dave-

[Des]

Here's something to mull over....(from the official websites so argue with them if you don't agree with the outputs quoted)

Jaguar
2.1L V6 - 2099cc - 117kW@6800, 200Nm@4100
3.0L V6 - 2967cc - 179kW@6800, 300Nm@4100
3.5L V8 - 3555cc - 196kW@6250, 345Nm@4200
4.2L V8 - 4196cc - 224kW@6000, 420Nm@4100

Land Rover
4.0L V6 - 4009cc - 160kW@4500, 360Nm@3000
2.7L TDV6 - 2720cc - 140kW@4000, 440Nm@1900
4.4L V8 - 4394cc - 220kW@5500, 425Nm@4000

Ford Aust.
4.0L I6 EGas - 3984cc - 156kW@4750, 372Nm@3000
4.0L I6 - 3984cc - 182kW@5000, 380Nm@3250
4.0L I6T - 3984cc - 240kW@5250, 450Nm@2000
5.4L V8 - 5408cc - 220kW@4750, 470Nm@3250

I haven't added performance V8's into the equation, but check out the torque ratings and I don't think we're to bad off. The above 6's were the only ones I could easily find as replacements of lower displacement, though I added the Land Rover 4.0L as a comparision.

[EFFalcon]

YES!
lets bring back the 3.2L... coz we know how succesful that was...
fuel savings?? i don't think there was any!

Stick with the 4.0 after all kilowatts help determine fuel economy more than size. Merc 5.0 V8 pumps 225kw or so but has economy of under 10L/100km which is outstanding for a car of that size and power. Newer technology will help boost economy for Fords motors in future. people who want economy can choose the gas option and pay less. A good idea is to also outsource a diesel motor from another ford owned company overseas to create a car that still has great power and towing capacity.

Small engines for ford will ruin the car and use alot of fuel for its size and cost more to operate in the end.

[XWGT]

I'll just take this one thanks....3.6 ltrs seems more than enough


Porsche 911 Turbo S
3,6l 6-cyl. boxer engine
331 kW (450 bhp) at 5.700 rpm

Performance
Top speed: 307 km/h (191 mph)
0-100 km/h (62 mph) in 4.2 secs.

If I wanted a big car with a smaller engine I would have bought one. I chose the Falcon for its towing capacity and the nice smooth straight six.

I suspect that our next car will be a turbo diesel so if Ford makes a reasonable size passenger car with a reasonable size turbo diesel engine at a reasonable price then we'll look at it. Not interested in the Territory - too big and too expensive.

[Walkinshaw]

A 2.5L falcon would me more than acceptable and even if it only had 150-160kw it would be fine. However it MUST have over 360Nm of torque avalable below 3500rpm.

[EL_futuraistic]

Im sure while in theory a 2.5L 6cyl falcon would be slightly more economical, except I dont think ford would like to make a slower new model than is already for sale. They built their name on big 6cyl cars.

The other option is DOD (displacement on demand) which Jeep already has with their Grand Cherokee. This would be a more likely senario than Ford shutting down production of their Local 6cyl in favour of a small capacity Import engine.

[Bluehoon]

Originally Posted by EL_futuraistic

Im sure while in theory a 2.5L 6cyl falcon would be slightly more economical, except I dont think ford would like to make a slower new model than is already for sale. They built their name on big 6cyl cars.

The other option is DOD (displacement on demand) which Jeep already has with their Grand Cherokee. This would be a more likely senario than Ford shutting down production of their Local 6cyl in favour of a small capacity Import engine.

A lighter weight BA/BF and the ford Courier V6 fitted would be a good thing.... :Reverend:

Nah no V6, straight 6 is better for Ford. Stick with the 4.0 although it drinks a bit, it still is a strong and pretty simple motor which costs less to fix anyway so you save from there.

An idea like the Jeeps as mentioned that shuts down 1/2 the cylinders on less than 3/4 throttle is excellent as fuel would be saved around town when power isnt needed

[marcosambrose]

Originally Posted by drphil

An idea like the Jeeps as mentioned that shuts down 1/2 the cylinders on less than 3/4 throttle is excellent as fuel would be saved around town when power isnt needed

Well D.O.D is pretty much the way of the future i guess, the HEMI V8 can use 4 of its 8 cylinders at any one time, which saves immensly on fuel.

[chevypower]

3.6 litre Ferraris use about 30 litres per 100km, 8.3 litre Dodge Vipers use about half that.... Yes, Dodge should get a high tech Ferrari engine to save people on fuel costs LOL

Interesting that DOD saves immensly on fuel, the 5.7 Jeep hasnt been tested without DOD, i would like to see that, but the 5.7 still uses more fuel than the 4.7 without DOD. Even if the 5.7 didnt have DOD, I wouldnt expect it to use much more fuel (if any) than the 4.7 - look at the Disco3 V6 and V8 fuel usage, and SV6 and SV8. I have not seen any proof that DOD is as good as they say it is.

[Citric GT]

I can't see the point of using a smaller engine that needs to work harder to go slower and use a poofteenth less fuel. Its just not worth it. I'm don't like gas myself, but if anyone was so concerned about saving money on fuel, just choose the e-gas option as mentioned earlier. At the end of the day, the current six cylinder sedans we have are extremely efficient at what they do. Why change anything.

[NC 5ltr]

Originally Posted by mr_efxr

You really think a 2.5L would push along a 1600Kg. No chance, only if it was a Diesel Turbo like the little euro's.

if BMW were supplying the 2.5's and 3.0's id definatly get one cause as most would know they make the best I6 in the world.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by chevypower

3.6 litre Ferraris use about 30 litres per 100km, 8.3 litre Dodge Vipers use about half that.... Yes, Dodge should get a high tech Ferrari engine to save people on fuel costs LOL

Interesting that DOD saves immensly on fuel, the 5.7 Jeep hasnt been tested without DOD, i would like to see that, but the 5.7 still uses more fuel than the 4.7 without DOD. Even if the 5.7 didnt have DOD, I wouldnt expect it to use much more fuel (if any) than the 4.7 - look at the Disco3 V6 and V8 fuel usage, and SV6 and SV8. I have not seen any proof that DOD is as good as they say it is.

8.3 litre Dodge Vipers use half that in their dreams. Claims are one thing.. reality is another.

[Pieoter]

For the best fuel saving Ford should be looking at offering Low capacity turbo engines. The inline 6 is a great platform to build upon becuase it makes great use of tecnology such a VVT. If you look at the jap cars 2.5L(RB25DET "neo" will get you 206KW and 343NM of torque.

This is more than enough power and for people that want extra power for work they can go a turbo diesel route.

[chevypower]

12mpg city/ 20mpg highway, never driven it, but i would say that sounds about right avg 16mpg which is 6.77km per litre or 14.77 litres per 100km - another reviewer claimed that the V8 Discovery uses more fuel than the V10 Viper, so it all sounds consistant to me. If i ever get to drive one i will let you know Steffo

I think Ford should offer the 2.7 TDI in an electric hybrid configuration through the 6 auto, I think biodiesel will be big soon enough commercially available and cheaper than fossil diesel. If it was a hybrid, i see no reason why an average of 5L per 100km or less couldnt be achievable

looks like Chrysler will be selling the 300C with the 3.0 CRD (non hybrid)

[geckoGT]

This discussion makes me think back to the release of the magna some time ago when the offered the 3L V6 and the 2.6 4 for the fleet buyers, they now only offer the 3.5L V6. Same thing happened to the 4cyl commodore and the smaller capacity falcon. The VL was also offered with a 2L version (try and find one). This seems to indicate to me that large under powered cars do not sell in australia. Have a look on the roads, how many camry's do you see in comparison to ford and holden (fleet cars included). Go the technology and give us the power when we need it (passing up a hill or towing)

[The MaDDeSTMaN]

Originally Posted by Pieoter

For the best fuel saving Ford should be looking at offering Low capacity turbo engines. The inline 6 is a great platform to build upon becuase it makes great use of tecnology such a VVT. If you look at the jap cars 2.5L(RB25DET "neo" will get you 206KW and 343NM of torque.

This is more than enough power and for people that want extra power for work they can go a turbo diesel route.

That's not a bad idea, a well setup, low boost turbo could mean they could increase the efficiency when it's not running on boost, and the extra power that people might want would only be a press on the throttle away.

That way they could make, say a 3.2L by reducing the stroke, and with modern fuel injection it wouldn't be too gutless off boost, and by having a lower stroke it would be able to rev harder, making it even more suitable for the turbo. It wouldn't need much boost to give it the same amount of power as it's bigger NA brother, and by not having much boost there would be very little, if any, turbo lag (more correctly boost lag), also there would be a lot of technology they have developed for the XR6T which would be suitable for this application.

Not a bad idea at all I think.

[Sleeperau]

Originally Posted by marcosambrose

With the usual petrol talk going around blah, blah blah. I cant be bothered going into since everyone knows the story - my question is:

Would you buy a 2.5L 6cyl Falcon? instead of a 4.0L you would increase fuel economy but at least 25-40% and the power would of course drop to about 140-160kw, but then again, if your a city driver you dont need the huge power from the 182 barra.

I know i would, for sure, ive always felt that 0-100 in 7.2sec (BA XT 182) is way too much for a fleet car, camrys have great economy but not really a drivers car, do we really need that much power? its good for enthusists but majority of 6cyl Falcon buyers are fleet so whats the point.

I think Ford should get ahead of the game and have something like this:


2.5L 6cyl XT, Futura, Fairmont, XR6
3.2L 6Cyl Fairmont, Fairmont Ghia, XR6
3.2L 6Cyl Turbo XR6 Turbo
3.5L V8 Fairmont Ghia, XTV8
4.4L V8 XR8 (ala Ferrari)

What do you guys think? maybe also:

2.3L 5cyl <- ive always thought that would be fine for a fleet car or taxi, why do they need so much power? who knows....
2.5L 6cyl Diesel XT, Futura, Fairmont, XR6
3.2L 6cyl Diesel Fairmont Ghia, XR6-D (performance diesel XR)

also i wrote a letter to Ford Oz a while back stating that a Diesel engine would be good for the BAIII (now BF) but i dont think they will have one.

Im open to critisism, support for my cause just say what you think...

The new BF Falcon delivers 11% better fuel economy & as a bonus is almost 10% up on power. I would rather go for the gas option than a 2.5 litre or less. Only milk & juice come in 2 litres.

[chevypower]

I thought my suggestion is actually one that WOULD save fuel. Smaller harder revving petrols wont do it, but a 2.7 V6 TDi going through an electric motor, I really believe would be capable of 200kw / 700Nm, great performance, strong towability, and somewhere around 5L per 100km - if they stuck something like that in the Territory, i think it would be even more effective

[Biggoggs]

As illustrated, I don't think smaller capacity engines mean better fuel economy. Small cars=small engines, large cars=large engines. Large car+small engine doesn't seem to do anything, if anything, make a step backwards. If someone wants a small engine with less power/torque, they'll buy a smaller car.

The Falcon is a heavy car, and needs an engine with enough torque to haul itself, passengers, and a trailer. Many people buy Falcons for the towing capability, so dumping a hamster into the hood won't be too popular. As for diesel or hybrid, diesel doesn't seem to be very popular with passenger cars here. Basic physics says that a heavier car needs more resources to move, but by improving it's efficiency and losing weight it can use less fuel.

[XplosiveR6]

Originally Posted by Pieoter

For the best fuel saving Ford should be looking at offering Low capacity turbo engines. The inline 6 is a great platform to build upon becuase it makes great use of tecnology such a VVT. If you look at the jap cars 2.5L(RB25DET "neo" will get you 206KW and 343NM of torque.

This is more than enough power and for people that want extra power for work they can go a turbo diesel route.

For starters nissan dont make those engines anymore (they havent for a few years now), secondly they chewed through petrol, and where horrible on emissions (which is why they dont make them anymore) turbo motors are typically not very good on fuel, a standard Barra182 would be much better on fuel. This is why the japanese car makers are steping away from forced induction and developing low emissions, fuel efficiant higher capacity motors instead.
For example, nissan ditched the RB motors and developed a higher capacity 3.5l V6, which is just as powerful as a RB25DET but uses less fuel and emissions

[4.0i_SiX]

I think the weight of the falcon would be too much for a smaller capacity engine with less torque. Think VB commodore...disaster