Will Territory become Fords No1 local?

[TMC]

Well the broadband manifold switches at 3800rpm by a vacuum actuator. TPi injection is restrictive at high rpm, so by switching to shorter runners it eliminates the restriction of the longer runners.

I'm talking about part throttle efficiency not full throttle efficiency. At full throttle the turbo motor is definitely more efficient. It's kW per litre consumed would be much better than the NA, but at part throttle, before the turbo has come on song, it is lacking the efficiency of the longer runners. To get it to go, you have to stab it harder to get the turbo to sing and then you have to enrichen the mixture.

With the NA motor at part throttle it will develop more efficient torque than the Turbo motor as the Turbo engine doesn't have the harmonic advantage of the longer runners. To the driver of the turbo, they would perceive no real difference at part throttle, as they are probably using a bit of boost and are not noticing the fuel going in. Of course, once the throttle is opened wide it's a totally different engine and the turbo motor rockets off.

Part throttle is where fuel efficiency is really measured, whereas power and torque curves are generated at wide open throttle. I wonder how the two motors compare at different percent throttle opening vs load comparing kW/litre of fuel consumed, if you know what I mean. ie, how efficiently they are generating power and torque at varying throttle settings.

That's just me thinking out loud.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by whynot

I would imagine that park assist would require some level of engineering (read expense) to integrate into the Territory.

Not as much as you would think, most of the hardware is already there...

The market has spoken; the I6T is dead in the Territory. If there ever were another engine upgrade in the Territory, it would be a revised diesel.

Probably so but I was told that Ford did the Euro 4 work on Turbo Territory before suspending it.
It is available if they choose to reintroduce it, all I'm saying is that by cutting AWD, the price would
drop by $6,500, improve performance and fuel economy to near SS Sport wagon levels...

and that's basically what I'm suggesting a competitor to the SS Sportwagon.....
Incremental increase in a model seeing more interest by adding a ready power plant.

[TMC]

Just went and found some figures for 2010 SY MkII Ghias.

NA RWD 12l/100km
NA AWD 12.9l/100km
Turbo AWD 14.2l/100km

In 2006 the figures were

NA RWD 12.2l/100km
NA AWD 12.8l/100km
Turbo AWD 14.2l/100km

So it appears that the Turbo adds 1.3-1.4l/100km extra whereas the AWD system adds 0.6-0.9l/100km, which kind of confirms that it was not the AWD system fitted to the Turbo Territory that added to the fuel consumption as much as the Turbo motor itself.

So if an SZ petrol RWD gets 10.6l/100km (brilliant figure BTW) then a Turbo RWD should get around 11.9-12l/100km, which I think is excellent considering the performance you'd get with it.

[Nikked]

Would ford do well to have a "rugged" verison?

Like stick an alloy bash plate to the front and rear bars, some chunkier tires and a 10-15mm increase to suspention height?

XR-X?

[Brazen]

[QUOTE=Nikked]Would ford do well to have a "rugged" verison?

Like stick an alloy bash plate to the front and rear bars, some chunkier tires and a 10-15mm increase to suspention height?
[QUOTE]
Yes that would do well with private buyers and government fleets.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by TMC

Just went and found some figures for 2010 SY MkII Ghias.

NA RWD 12l/100km
NA AWD 12.9l/100km
Turbo AWD 14.2l/100km

In 2006 the figures were

NA RWD 12.2l/100km
NA AWD 12.8l/100km
Turbo AWD 14.2l/100km

So it appears that the Turbo adds 1.3-1.4l/100km extra whereas the AWD system adds 0.6-0.9l/100km, which kind of confirms that it was not the AWD system fitted to the Turbo Territory that added to the fuel consumption as much as the Turbo motor itself.

So if an SZ petrol RWD gets 10.6l/100km (brilliant figure BTW) then a Turbo RWD should get around 11.9-12l/100km, which I think is excellent considering the performance you'd get with it.

Exactly and most likely, an interesting counterpoint to SS Sportwagon...
That's if Ford ever thought that there were good sales in that niche...

(not wanting to turn this thread into an XR8 type circular debate)

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Yes that would be completely pointless with private buyers and government fleets.

Fixed.

Government fleets arent even buying/cannot buy Territories and private SUV buyers are hardly interested in off road ability. If they were, they'd be buying 4x4 vehicles. Far more lucrative to have a sports or upper lux model.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Fixed.

Government fleets arent even buying/cannot buy Territories and private SUV buyers are hardly interested in off road ability. If they were, they'd be buying 4x4 vehicles. Far more lucrative to have a sports or upper lux model.

And let's not forget that Ford will have the very capable Everest arriving in the near future,
so they would prefer for Territory and Everest to capture different demographics
much the same way that Kluger and Prado work hand in glove.

Re Territory, I think the gap between TX and TS is too big regarding price Vs equipment level
and will be undermined, the first time a "Territory SR" or some such special is offered..
I think they should at least be adding options to the TX, even if they're grouped...

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by jpd80

And let's not forget that Ford will have the very capable Everest arriving in the near future,
so they would prefer for Territory and Everest to capture different demographics
much the same way that Kluger and Prado work hand in glove.

Re Territory, I think the gap between TX and TS is too big regarding price Vs equipment level
and will be undermined, the first time a "Territory SR" or some such special is offered..
I think they should at least be adding options to the TX, even if they're grouped...

Road_Warrior likes this

Personally I think the TX should be fleet only and the upper lux model introduced. Complement the TS with the sports model and you're set.

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by TMC

Well the broadband manifold switches at 3800rpm by a vacuum actuator. TPi injection is restrictive at high rpm, so by switching to shorter runners it eliminates the restriction of the longer runners.

I'm talking about part throttle efficiency not full throttle efficiency. At full throttle the turbo motor is definitely more efficient. It's kW per litre consumed would be much better than the NA, but at part throttle, before the turbo has come on song, it is lacking the efficiency of the longer runners. To get it to go, you have to stab it harder to get the turbo to sing and then you have to enrichen the mixture.

With the NA motor at part throttle it will develop more efficient torque than the Turbo motor as the Turbo engine doesn't have the harmonic advantage of the longer runners. To the driver of the turbo, they would perceive no real difference at part throttle, as they are probably using a bit of boost and are not noticing the fuel going in. Of course, once the throttle is opened wide it's a totally different engine and the turbo motor rockets off.

Part throttle is where fuel efficiency is really measured, whereas power and torque curves are generated at wide open throttle. I wonder how the two motors compare at different percent throttle opening vs load comparing kW/litre of fuel consumed, if you know what I mean. ie, how efficiently they are generating power and torque at varying throttle settings.

That's just me thinking out loud.

Keep in mind Ford went from running a plenum running with no butterfly to
The turbo motors having their own unique log style manifold.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

i can't imagine territory living much beyond falcon's death.

It won't, but that doesn't mean it can't be Ford's no 1 in the years it has left.

Originally Posted by whynot

I would imagine that park assist would require some level of engineering (read expense) to integrate into the Territory. Such expense is fine if one is selling a few hundred thousand units per year (like the Focus), but I cannot see the ROI for the small numbers for a Territory run.

The Territory already has electric power steering, so park assist is just a case of software and some sensors, its wouldn't be too hard as Ford already have the tech in other vehicles. Its probably a generic Bosch system anyway, which makes it easy to adapt to any vehicle that has electric power steering.

Originally Posted by TMC

So it appears that the Turbo adds 1.3-1.4l/100km extra whereas the AWD system adds 0.6-0.9l/100km, which kind of confirms that it was not the AWD system fitted to the Turbo Territory that added to the fuel consumption as much as the Turbo motor itself.

So if an SZ petrol RWD gets 10.6l/100km (brilliant figure BTW) then a Turbo RWD should get around 11.9-12l/100km, which I think is excellent considering the performance you'd get with it.

Those figures are basically FG Turbo numbers, the extra few hundred kg's of the Territory would blow that out at least another 0.5 to 1 litre per 100. I doubt you'd get better than 13, but its pointless discussing it because the previous turbo territory was such a failure Ford would never consider it again.

[EL Lupo]

Originally Posted by turbodewd

They absolutely should bring out a sporty Territory. Let it have the wilder XR colors and sport it up somewhat. Sporty wheels, bigger ones. Plenty of people love to bling up their SUVs.

Halleluya! I reckon Ford's problem with the turbo territory was the marketing and positioning, didn't you have to buy the GHIA to access the turbo? How about those people that throw sooo many dollars at Brabus tuned Porsche Cayennes? they're not putting luxury in, they're replacing it with performance. Put some mongrel in a sports Territory and do limited runs, it'll sell.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Fixed.

Government fleets arent even buying/cannot buy Territories and private SUV buyers are hardly interested in off road ability. If they were, they'd be buying 4x4 vehicles. Far more lucrative to have a sports or upper lux model.

Yes better tell the dual cab parade they dont buy off road ability.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by EL Lupo

Halleluya! I reckon Ford's problem with the turbo territory was the marketing and positioning, didn't you have to buy the GHIA to access the turbo? How about those people that throw sooo many dollars at Brabus tuned Porsche Cayennes? they're not putting luxury in, they're replacing it with performance. Put some mongrel in a sports Territory and do limited runs, it'll sell.

Turbo Territory was $53,990 + ORC and Ghia Turbo was $66,820 + ORC
But hey, it was such a failure because of greed and poor marketing,
Ford thought buyers would pay any price to get a Turbo...
only 169 sales in its last year, you gotta wonder....

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by jpd80

only 169 sales in its last year, you gotta wonder....

Ouch. No wonder they never even considered a replacement for it.

They should have offered it in RWD and not just forced buyers to pay extra for AWD.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Ouch. No wonder they never even considered a replacement for it.

They should have offered it in RWD and not just forced buyers to pay extra for AWD.

That's what I was saying, alternative to SS Sportwagon

and I heard Euro 4 version of AWD Turbo was done but not released..

[TMC]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Turbo Territory was $53,990 + ORC and Ghia Turbo was $66,820 + ORC
But hey, it was such a failure because of greed and poor marketing,
Ford thought buyers would pay any price to get a Turbo...
only 169 sales in its last year, you gotta wonder....

How many Turbo falcons are being sold at the moment. More than 169 a year????

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by TMC

How many Turbo falcons are being sold at the moment. More than 169 a year????

If you ever want to know stuff like this, check out Russell's neat Tech resources section on the tabs above this thread.

Last year, sales of Turbo I-6 was like this:
XR6T 1,034
XR6 Ute 729
G6ET 535
FPV 361

While I-6 turbo is the V8 replacement, it's not really bringing in as many sales as expected.
maybe it's just a sign of the changing times where people will not accept that type of fuel consumption.

[whynot]

The turbo+AWD=failure is not just restricted to the Territory. There has been articles in the motoring press this week with Mazda attributed as saying it the reason the CX-7 didn’t sell was due the turbo’s poor fuel economy and high price. The CX-5 attempts to address this problem with efficient normally aspirated petrol engines / turbo diesels and a lower price. It sounds remarkable similar to what Ford have done with the Territory.

Getting back to the OP. I think that the large car, in its present form, is a dying breed. Buyers who are in that space look at the fuel usage, the interior space, and the road footprint (i.e. how hard is it to park at Woolworths) and decide that a soft SUV makes better sense. The Territory was always meant to replace the Falcon wagon. Maybe it is finally living up to that goal.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by whynot

The turbo+AWD=failure is not just restricted to the Territory. There has been articles in the motoring press this week with Mazda attributed as saying it the reason the CX-7 didn’t sell was due the turbo’s poor fuel economy and high price. The CX-5 attempts to address this problem with efficient normally aspirated petrol engines / turbo diesels and a lower price. It sounds remarkable similar to what Ford have done with the Territory.

Good pick up but most small/mid SUVs and crossovers are already on efficient diesels.
In the US the slightly bigger and heavier 3.5 V6 Ford Edge has better performance and
fuel economy than the turbo Mazda CX-7. I have driven both and can atets to Edge's superiority.

(Edge based on Mazda CD3S platform = Mazda CX-9)

Getting back to the OP. I think that the large car, in its present form, is a dying breed. Buyers who are in that space look at the fuel usage, the interior space, and the road footprint (i.e. how hard is it to park at Woolworths) and decide that a soft SUV makes better sense. The Territory was always meant to replace the Falcon wagon. Maybe it is finally living up to that goal.

Falcon's future now lies squarely in the hands of fleet managers, not the few monthly retail sales...
If fleets choose to buy large mid sized cars instead of Falcon and Commodore,
they realize an immediate savings in fully maintained leasing contracts....

Let's hope Ford can sway those managers back to the fold with a better product..

[Nic85]

You guys comparing fuel economy figures on the Territory; I'm sorry, but you're delirious. Even a base model petrol Territory will not get anywhere near the claimed 10.6L/100km in the real world. I'd love for some Territory owners on here to post up and prove me wrong, but my sisters 2005 RWD Ghia averages around 16L/100km in combined driving. It will not go below 10L/100km on the highway, so how it'd ever average 10.6 is beyond me.

Add the extra weight of the turbo, intercooler, pipes etc, and you get a 2.3 tonne SUV being towed around by a big, thirsty turbo charged 6 cylinder engine. With no direct injection or other fuel managing techniques, it'll average nearly 20L/100km in the real world - that's why it failed so bad, and that's why the diesel is so successful!

I understand the want for a performance variant, I love performance cars. But the numbers they sell in cannot justify it for a car like the Territory, with the shoestring budget FoA has. Maybe if they had the kinda bank roll BMW or Mercedes have they could do a 5L supercharged Territory, or a performance diesel version with the 3L V6. Ain't gonna happen though people.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Nic85

You guys comparing fuel economy figures on the Territory; I'm sorry, but you're delirious. Even a base model petrol Territory will not get anywhere near the claimed 10.6L/100km in the real world. I'd love for some Territory owners on here to post up and prove me wrong, but my sisters 2005 RWD Ghia averages around 16L/100km in combined driving. It will not go below 10L/100km on the highway, so how it'd ever average 10.6 is beyond me.

The new ones have a 6-speed auto which makes a huge difference to fuel economy, especially in city driving
where the torque converter locks up through the gears.

My sister in law has a Territory Ghia like the one you describe but she gets much better economy than that
She regularly sees 9.0 l/100 km on the run up to the sunshine coast..

And for the record 2005 Territory RWD Ghia
Combined 12.2 l/100 km
Urban 16.6 l/100 km
Extra urban 9.6 l/100 km....... Basically what you said

Economy figures for SZ RTX RWD
Combined 10.6 l/100 km
Urban 15 l/100 km
Extra urban 8.0 l/100 km...... new buyers are experiencing 8.0 to 8.5

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Nic85

but my sisters 2005 RWD Ghia averages around 16L/100km in combined driving. It will not go below 10L/100km on the highway, so how it'd ever average 10.6 is beyond me.

comparing a 2005 to 2012 nice.

also, the process to achieve the combined figures isn't as simple as adding highway and city figures and dividing by 2. there is specific procedure used, and then the manufacturers are free to advertise using that figure.

i can match or better the claimed economy in my FG so my 'real world' is pretty good.

[Nic85]

Originally Posted by jpd80

The new ones have a 6-speed auto which makes a huge difference to fuel economy, especially in city driving
where the torque converter locks up through the gears.

My sister in law has a Territory Ghia like the one you describe but she gets much better economy than that
She regularly sees 9.0 l/100 km on the run up to the sunshine coast..

And for the record 2005 Territory RWD Ghia
Combined 12.2 l/100 km
Urban 16.6 l/100 km
Extra urban 9.6 l/100 km....... Basically what you said

Economy figures for SZ RTX RWD
Combined 10.6 l/100 km
Urban 15 l/100 km
Extra urban 8.0 l/100 km...... new buyers are experiencing 8.0 to 8.5

How is that, "Basically what I said" man? Her average is 16L/100km, which is compared to the "Combined" figure of 12.2L/100km. Also, it won't go under 10L/100km on the highway, so doesn't come close to the claimed 9.6L/100km for the highway.

If a new petrol Territory does 8L/100km on the highway, I'll eat a live turtle. The diesel I can believe.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Nic85

If a new petrol Territory does 8L/100km on the highway, I'll eat a live turtle. The diesel I can believe.

whilst it sounds hard to believe, a FG falcon's claimed extra urban consumtion is 7.2, and with a fully loaded car (4 people, boot chockers) i can get under 8, so i'd say its not beyond the realms of possibility.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Nic85

How is that, "Basically what I said" man? Her average is 16L/100km, which is compared to the "Combined" figure of 12.2L/100km.

Because we're not comparing apples to apples, the mix of driving is probably nothing like the Urban and Extra urban test or the combined figure.

If I don't watch how I drive the FG Ute, my combined goes up to 14 l/100 without anything in the back,
Many on here advised me to use the top half of the pedal and keep revs and gear changes close to 2,000
and the fuel economy came back down to 10.5-11.0 l/100 km... but I digress..

Also, it won't go under 10L/100km on the highway, so doesn't come close to the claimed 9.6L/100km for the highway.

My sister has a Terry Ghia and her's regularly gets 9.5 on the highway but neither one can claim to be representative examples of all Ghias.
And BTW, in the real world 9.6 l/100 km is pretty close to 10.0 l/100 km, you can easily lose 0.4 l/100 km by using cruise control......
I found that out in my FG R6, with 200 kg of gear in the back I could get 8.5-9.0 l/100 km but only self drive,, cruise would result in 10.5-11.0 l/100 km.
Anytime you have an undulating road, cruise will tend to suck the juice..

Hope this helps.

If a new petrol Territory does 8L/100km on the highway, I'll eat a live turtle. The diesel I can believe.

The diesels can get down close to 6.5-7.0 on steady running.

[SumoDog68]

I drive in the city traffic a fair bit and peak hour average speed is probably around walking pace - Territory city fuel consumption is rated at 15 + and it can get worse in gridlock - so i ' d say in country town Terry would be great but city car it ain't...unless it is a diesel.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by jpd80

That's what I was saying, alternative to SS Sportwagon

and I heard Euro 4 version of AWD Turbo was done but not released..

The old 190 Copperhead engine was made Euro 4 compliant for SYII Territory, can't see why the 245 turbo wouldn't have been able to do it too. Or were they switching to the 270 FG engine?

But I noticed they kept it very quiet that the old Copperhead engine was made Euro 4 because they used it as an excuse when they were to switch to the V6, by saying the I6 couldn't be made emissions compliant. Sly buggers.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

The old 190 Copperhead engine was made Euro 4 compliant for SYII Territory, can't see why the 245 turbo wouldn't have been able to do it too. Or were they switching to the 270 FG engine?

But I noticed they kept it very quiet that the old Copperhead engine was made Euro 4 because they used it as an excuse when they were to switch to the V6, by saying the I6 couldn't be made emissions compliant. Sly buggers.

Ah that's because under Euro 4, different emission levels apply to vehicle like Territory compared to Falcon
and basically as you said, the old Copperhead in Territory already complied to Euro 4.
Falcon was the only one that had to change.

[TMC]

My SY AWD Territory on LPG can easily achieve 16L/100km in the city, and even better if driven right. On the open road it can easily get down into the 13's/100km. On 98RON the fuel consumption in heavy city driving is in the 13's/100km and on the open road easily drops into the 10-11l/100km range. My car is from 2006, so a 2012 RWD Turbo could get around 12l/100km in all likelihood. Drive it like an idiot though and watch your fuel fly out the exhaust as fast as you fly forward down the road.

BTW, the 10.6l/100km is the combined figure for the 2012 Titanium SZ RWD petrol.

My SY AWD had an advertised combined figure of 12.8l/100km and when I drove exclusively on 98RON I achieved 12.3l/100km. So those advertised figures are not unachievable.