Should they build an Ecoboost XR6?

[Elks]

Yep. Ecoboost is fantastic.

Just call it an XR6 Ecoboost. All other options the same. Don't wake them up.

Plus it's p plate friendly, so in years to come young folk can buy them, and once off P's can boost them up.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by Elks

Yep. Ecoboost is fantastic.

Just call it an XR6 Ecoboost. All other options the same. Don't wake them up.

Plus it's p plate friendly, so in years to come young folk can buy them, and once off P's can boost them up.

Thats it...the XR brand would have to be the most well known of all of them (bar GT)...it seems like a no brainer really. I mean why not?

"XR" should be about the whole package, not just pure numbers.

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by barra240t

Alright forget the XR badge then, call it SR.

Spec it up in between XR/G series, base the vehicle on a G series/XT

6 speed manual or 6 speed auto (I doubt we would sell many manuals, but you never know)

- 17" alloys, optional 18"
- Leather wheel
- Fog lamps
- Touch screen
- Reverse sensing/maybe reverse camera, depending on cost
- Cruise
- Lip soiler
- SR sports suspension
- SR sports cloth seats
- SR chrome grille

Sell it at the right price, can't say we didn't try!

Maybe one of the forums photoshop gurus can paint us a picture?

That model just about already exists. Its called the G6 Ecoboost, only thing from above list not included is sports seats.

I would say dont call it XR6, maybe "SX Ecoboost" or "XR-S". Just make it an XR6 (front styling, wheels, interior ect) but with EB engine. The only snag would be Ford needing to do a new DSC tune to match the EB engine with the XR sports suspention tune, and that cost would probably outway the amount they could sell

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

That model just about already exists. Its called the G6 Ecoboost, only thing from above list not included is sports seats.

The seats are the same in G6 and XR6 I reckon, just different fabric and stitching.

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

I would say dont call it XR6, maybe "SX Ecoboost" or "XR-S". Just make it an XR6 (front styling, wheels, interior ect) but with EB engine.

Yeah no doubt the XR6 has sold well privately because it is handsome, the sporty EB would have to look pretty much the same I reckon. Can't say I like the FGII XR6 styling as much tho... That big mouth!

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

The only snag would be Ford needing to do a new DSC tune to match the EB engine with the XR sports suspention tune, and that cost would probably outway the amount they could sell

Well the G6 E Turbo has a unique suspension set up right? Half way betwixt XR and G6? I doubt they ever thought it would be a high volume seller but it obviously got a unique DSC tune... I doubt it would take that much extra R&D.

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by Elks

Yep. Ecoboost is fantastic.

Just call it an XR6 Ecoboost. All other options the same. Don't wake them up.

Plus it's p plate friendly, so in years to come young folk can buy them, and once off P's can boost them up.

Yeah I think only the Ford diehards really care about the whole name thing.

You just stick the EB badge opposite the XR6 badge and no one who's actually buying one would care.

:-)

[superfly]

Originally Posted by Grobbo

Yeah I think only the Ford diehards really care about the whole name thing.

You just stick the EB badge opposite the XR6 badge and no one who's actually buying one would care.

:-)

I agree. The XR6 is even sold as a gas only car. Whilst I know the EcoLPi goes well but since when has gas been associated with sporty?

[jpd80]

XR, G6 and XT all have slightly different front sacrificial panels, fitting the Ecoboost to an XR would require crash testing.
Also recalibration of DSC and ECU along with validation is a lengthy process with costs roughly half of crash testing.

Aside from all that, I can understand Ford being cautious and wanting to protect Falcon's biggest I-6 model,
the last thing Ford would want to do is simply substitute Ecoboost XR sales for existing I-6 XR sales as that
would place I-6 production into further jeopardy.

Ford realises that the market still has need of a big car but maybe not a big capacity six anymore,
whether that mean a home spun small I-6 turbo or global Ecoboost engines remains to be seen.

Ford US has a 2.7 V6 Ecoboost in the pipeline that will produce around 250 Kw and 500 nm,
about the power and torque of a BA XR6T but with fuel economy only dreamed of a few years ago..

[In Focus]

No to XR6 Ecoboost*. It's supposed to be the (more) economical fleet model. For those who want to tune it: you've already got a perfectly good turbo that starts with more grunt.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by jpd80

XR, G6 and XT all have slightly different front sacrificial panels, fitting the Ecoboost to an XR would require crash testing.
Also recalibration of DSC and ECU along with validation is a lengthy process with costs roughly half of crash testing.

Aside from all that, I can understand Ford being cautious and wanting to protect Falcon's biggest I-6 model,
the last thing Ford would want to do is simply substitute Ecoboost XR sales for existing I-6 XR sales as that
would place I-6 production into further jeopardy.

Ford realises that the market still has need of a big car but maybe not a big capacity six anymore,
whether that mean a home spun small I-6 turbo or global Ecoboost engines remains to be seen.

Ford US has a 2.7 V6 Ecoboost in the pipeline that will produce around 250 Kw and 500 nm,
about the power and torque of a BA XR6T but with fuel economy only dreamed of a few years ago..

I can understand their reasons too...but what do you do?

Id be chasing actual car sales than worrying about numbers coming out of one component plant (yes I know what that means).

Tdi Tez would have "hurt" I6 sales, now the EB4, so I can see why FoA would be nervous. But at the end of the day the I6 probably wont be around forever and as you state there is better tech sitting waiting to go in.

As for the testing, well it would be minimal I would think, the change from XT EB4 to XR4 would be cosmetic no? I didnt think (or guess) there were any major structural changes to rad supports etc that actually matter in a crash.

Also not having a look myself I would hazard a guess and say that the % difference in air intake would favour the XR..so no cooling testing required either as it would have been done.

Either way, its a cheap exercise as far as making a "new" model is concerned.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Polyal

As for the testing, well it would be minimal I would think, the change from XT EB4 to XR4 would be cosmetic no? I didnt think (or guess) there were any major structural changes to rad supports etc that actually matter in a crash.

Also not having a look myself I would hazard a guess and say that the % difference in air intake would favour the XR..so no cooling testing required either as it would have been done.

Either way, its a cheap exercise as far as making a "new" model is concerned.

No it's not, that info i provided came from within....
Word is that at the time, Ford agonized over it but decided not to do it but considering the rapid
reduction in fleet sales and corresponding reduction in interest for EcoLPI, things are different now...

[Polyal]

Fleets drop because they are stung for buying a 6? So EB made much more sense than LPi, although Im lead to believe Lpi helps the ute along nicely.

I dont know..seems things are changed to suit a company line, as mentioned, id be doing everything imaginable to move Falcon cars and prove that its still viable. Id rather shut the engine plant than get rid of the Falcon all together (not that I think EB alone will save it).

So are you saying that no its not cheap (a relative term) or that structurally a EB car is very different to a I6?

[BPXR6T]

Performance and economy are two opposing concepts. Why screw up your marketing. It sends the wrong message and goes against the point of the car.

[Polyal]

Not really, thats what the EB4 and newer direct injection turbo's etc are trying to do, actually its the whole point.

Downsizing to save weight/cost but retaining performance and economy.

The problem is that everyone's definition of the above is different, a EB4 XR seems like a logical option for those who want a sporty looking car that is also "economical".

The na XR6 is hardly a performance car but its worthy of the XR badge? I dont see it.

The XR brand seems to be the main seller, well I see heaps of Xr6's anyway, much more than XT's, it is already the entry Falcon IMO.

[Joe5619]

EB would have to be one of the worst thought out, planned & executed models in Ford Australia’s history in a long time!!

1) They didn't engineer it to meet already know government targets. Selling to fleets was the whole point of EB
2) Not putting EB in your best selling model? Failed. Then I hear lines like “it might take away sales from I6”. Then what is the point of doing EB in the first place if that is your line of defense?
3) No marketing (apart from leading the car for test drives) when EB was first launched
4) Very little continued marketing since launch.


Such a great engine with 4 or less builds a day. I know it is going to take time for people to “get’ EB, but Ford has not done themselves any favors. Hopefully they know what they are doing!!

[FalconXV]

Originally Posted by jpd80

XR, G6 and XT all have slightly different front sacrificial panels, fitting the Ecoboost to an XR would require crash testing.
Also recalibration of DSC and ECU along with validation is a lengthy process with costs roughly half of crash testing.

Aside from all that, I can understand Ford being cautious and wanting to protect Falcon's biggest I-6 model,
the last thing Ford would want to do is simply substitute Ecoboost XR sales for existing I-6 XR sales as that
would place I-6 production into further jeopardy.

Ford realises that the market still has need of a big car but maybe not a big capacity six anymore,
whether that mean a home spun small I-6 turbo or global Ecoboost engines remains to be seen.
.

Why would it need a new DSC calibration if its the same output as the base model?
And AFAIK isn't it the front bar thats different? i.e. not the crumple zone behind it?

[Buntz]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

Jo Public (Jo being a girls name) doesn't care about cylinders, but knows they don't like Falcons.

Joe Public (being a man) does care about cylinders, and likes Falcons.

Therefore, neither like 4 cylinder Falcons. Hence sales figures of 4 cylinder Falcons.

This just confirms that the buying public are ignorant.

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by FalconXV

Why would it need a new DSC calibration if its the same output as the base model?
And AFAIK isn't it the front bar thats different? i.e. not the crumple zone behind it?

Its to do with the way the different weight of the EB engine and its location works with the XR-type suspention tune.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by superfly

I agree. The XR6 is even sold as a gas only car. Whilst I know the EcoLPi goes well but since when has gas been associated with sporty?

The lpi's make more power and torque and are faster than the Na 6's and the Ecoboost. Better suited to XR than those 2 imo.

[Elks]

I've thought a bit more about this. My thoughts are radical but let's face it FOA needs radical

I'd drop the n/a 4.0. And have a range shift.

Falcon XR Turbo. Running Ecoboost 2.0
Falcon XR6 Turbo running the current 4.0 turbo badged as Ecoboost 6.
falcon XR8. A rebadged GS running 5.0 s/c as per current. But badged 5.0 Ecoboost.

Big marketing push on the new fuel efficient boosted falcon engines. ford US has done heaps of drag comparisons of Ecoboost 6 out running V8's. sell the sizzle not the steak. All of those cars would be fantastic cars and give joe & Jo public a reason to talk falcon.

[tezxr8man]

Originally Posted by Grobbo

I reckon they've definitely thought about it. Aside from revised suspension tuning (to make it a bit sportier than the XT/G6) there would be no development costs to speak of. (If it was Auto only)

The only thing really standing in the way is the percieved pollution of the XR name plate, and what the hell to call the thing!

They would be better off making the falcon "cool" again, they did it after the AU with the BA and now have to do it again. that is the only prob with the Falcon, it's a great car it just has to be marketed like it is not like an unwanted child. After that maybe give the XR Ecoboost a go
it would be better to call it an S pack tho and keep the turbo 6 and bring back the v8 for the performance flagship. it actually offers more in the range that way, and doesn't dilute the XR name down to nothing like it's getting to at the moment

[NX74205]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Aside from all that, I can understand Ford being cautious and wanting to protect Falcon's biggest I-6 model,
the last thing Ford would want to do is simply substitute Ecoboost XR sales for existing I-6 XR sales as that
would place I-6 production into further jeopardy.

I think that's just shooting themselves in the foot. If they do an EcoBoost XR, it might help sales tick along at a slightly faster rate, yet they won't do it because they want to protect the I6?

Regardless of what engines it has, the Falcon needs every sale it can get. By introducing a greater variety of engine/trim combinations, they would also be increasing the likelihood of better sales. The idea is that people should get a choice of which engine they want to power their Falcon, regardless of the trim level they choose.

[Motorbreath310]

Anyone else Jaguar is releasing an XF with the ecoboost four? For 68k? Wonder how long before it'll find its way into an F-type?

[Bonn]

Originally Posted by Elks

I've thought a bit more about this. My thoughts are radical but let's face it FOA needs radical

I'd drop the n/a 4.0. And have a range shift.

Falcon XR Turbo. Running Ecoboost 2.0
Falcon XR6 Turbo running the current 4.0 turbo badged as Ecoboost 6.
falcon XR8. A rebadged GS running 5.0 s/c as per current. But badged 5.0 Ecoboost.

Big marketing push on the new fuel efficient boosted falcon engines. ford US has done heaps of drag comparisons of Ecoboost 6 out running V8's. sell the sizzle not the steak. All of those cars would be fantastic cars and give joe & Jo public a reason to talk falcon.

Spot on!
V8SC signage is well into it's second year of pushing "ECOBOOST" into the media - provided FPR win rounds - and represents a distinct edge over the GMH range, which at present is totally N/A, and always was (exception being VT & CV6 S/C 3.8). That would make Falcons 'Cool', desirable and demonstratively green-conscious.
Base XRs would still sell like hot-cakes and the N/A I6 could still power non-XR utes, with LPG versions remaining the choice of cabbies.

[Bonn]

Originally Posted by Motorbreath310

Anyone else Jaguar is releasing an XF with the ecoboost four? For 68k? Wonder how long before it'll find its way into an F-type?

Just a matter of time, given the Z4 moves a few units in 2litreT 240bhp mode.
Drove a mate's Z4 and they go well, stay on the revs and make the most of their 8sp Zf box. The point of the F-type is 'compact sports' IMO.
Still happy to get back into my 5.4, plus we looked a bit like a same-sex couple getting around with the top down.....not that there's anything wrong with that

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

EB would have to be one of the worst thought out, planned & executed models in Ford Australia’s history in a long time!!

1) They didn't engineer it to meet already know government targets. Selling to fleets was the whole point of EB
2) Not putting EB in your best selling model? Failed. Then I hear lines like “it might take away sales from I6”. Then what is the point of doing EB in the first place if that is your line of defense?
3) No marketing (apart from leading the car for test drives) when EB was first launched
4) Very little continued marketing since launch.


Such a great engine with 4 or less builds a day. I know it is going to take time for people to “get’ EB, but Ford has not done themselves any favors. Hopefully they know what they are doing!!

If I were the gummint handing out cash to Ford I would stipulate some marketing expenditure on it's new eco tech! And you'd think, wouldn't you, that either the government or Ford would have thought about fleet sales a bit harder... Geez man.

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by Elks

I've thought a bit more about this. My thoughts are radical but let's face it FOA needs radical

I'd drop the n/a 4.0. And have a range shift.

Falcon XR Turbo. Running Ecoboost 2.0
Falcon XR6 Turbo running the current 4.0 turbo badged as Ecoboost 6.
falcon XR8. A rebadged GS running 5.0 s/c as per current. But badged 5.0 Ecoboost.

Big marketing push on the new fuel efficient boosted falcon engines. ford US has done heaps of drag comparisons of Ecoboost 6 out running V8's. sell the sizzle not the steak. All of those cars would be fantastic cars and give joe & Jo public a reason to talk falcon.

Yeah that would be awesome. You could still have an XR6 as EcoLPI too if you wanted.
Man, if only to be in charge at Ford for a year or so eh! :-)

[NX74205]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

1) They didn't engineer it to meet already know government targets. Selling to fleets was the whole point of EB

I can't say that prioritising the EcoBoost for driving enjoyment and more low end torque for better "get up and go" over emissions standards is a failure.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by FalconXV

Why would it need a new DSC calibration if its the same output as the base model?
And AFAIK isn't it the front bar thats different? i.e. not the crumple zone behind it?

Like most here I just thought the differences between the fronts on XT, G6 and XR was purely cosmetic, boy was I wrong...
The sacrifical panel behind the front bar is different enough in in the XRs to warrant crash test with a change of engine...
XR6 EB would have different suspension and roll stiffness, change one thing it's a recalibration and recertification
That information came from Ford BTW...

And my own personal take:
Ultimately, this is a choice between Ecoboost and I-6 with Ford kind of shying away from the truth at the moment,
there's still quite a few sales but if push came to shove and the I-6 was replaced by an EB I-4 and a 5.0 V8...well, I dunno...

[FalconXV]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Like most here I just thought the differences between the fronts on XT, G6 and XR was purely cosmetic, boy was I wrong...
The sacrifical panel behind the front bar is different enough in in the XRs to warrant crash test with a change of engine...
XR6 EB would have different suspension and roll stiffness, change one thing it's a recalibration and recertification
That information came from Ford BTW...
...

The next model is going to have entirely new 'sacraficial panels' anyway so isn't that a moot point?

[Elks]

I just read elsewhere that an Ecoboost Falcon' stock at full weight ran a 14.6 at WSID. With, and I quote " a 14.3 in it and potentially a sub 14 on a cold night".

In a world where my old 220kw TS50 got me 16l/100 (As bad as 22 in heavy traffic ) and its very best run was 14.98 I can't see what the problem is. As per my post above just call it an XR and get on with it.