First Drive: Falcon Ecoboost

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Think about it, taxi work is easy on engines, that's why they last forever.....

some people dont think...they just open there mouth and uneducated dribble flows forth. Not to mention that the next person on this forum who takes an advertisement for granted should be shot. WHAT SORT OF RETARD WOULD THINK AN F TRUCK COULD PULL LOGS UP A HILL FOR 10 YEARS...THATS WHY THEY BUILD DOZERS... ITS JUST AN ADD. oh and the last time i checked you cant drive the dozer home n pick up the kids or hit the highway towing 3 ton.blah blah

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

some people dont think...they just open there mouth and uneducated dribble flows forth. Not to mention that the next person on this forum who takes an advertisement for granted should be shot. WHAT SORT OF RETARD WOULD THINK AN F TRUCK COULD PULL LOGS UP A HILL FOR 10 YEARS...THATS WHY THEY BUILD DOZERS... ITS JUST AN ADD. oh and the last time i checked you cant drive the dozer home n pick up the kids or hit the highway towing 3 ton.blah blah

some of the good 'ol boys think they are bulldozers



Maybe it's time for Ford to be in the local media every other week for something good,
maybe a bit of controversy is cheap advertising, if used properly. I wonder how long
it will take the press to work out that they have been had on the continual Falcon is dead rumor.....

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by Racecraft

Not even LPi.... Hybrid or aftermarket LPG is where that market has headed....

Not to diss the LPi, but Ford were 3 years too late....

They will be using LPI in 18 months when they can get their hands on Ex fleet ones... LOL...

The taxi market is a waste of time for Ford now and thats okay, they didn't want to keep supporting it due to the poor brand image back in the BF days... ask any Taxi driver tho and they all still prefer the Falcons...

The taxi industry is stuffed anyways... Especially in QLD... Every Silver Service G6E I see is stuffed... The industry has hit rock bottom... very rarely do I ever get in a car thats actually clean or roadworthy, which is pretty sad.

[mik]

actually i`ve noticed quite a few new fg taxi`s in our neck of the woods lately, if that was the plan i don`t think it is working.

[TMC]

Here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2OsCowvbXE

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I6 has to pass the same torturous durability tests as every other Ford engine has too. I would gaurantee it could do anything the EB V6 could do. And some of those tests in the videos Ford posted have already been done with I6, the dyno ones anyway.

Got any proof that the I-6 went through the same torture test as the 3.5 EB F-150? Or just your personal guarantee? I just can't imagine Ford putting a 5 tonne load on the back of a Falcon, while it does 130km/h around a race track for 24 hours. I also don't know of Ford taking that same 4.0L I-6 engine and racing it in Baja. You guarantee that it has done the same stuff is the first I have heard about it. I suppose all this was done with the direct injection system fitted to it also!

[phillyc]

I thought the thread was about Ecoboost Falcon

[TMC]

That Ecoblast 3.5 V6 would make the Falcon a monster. I say "BRING IT ON"

[flappist]

Originally Posted by phillyc

I thought the thread was about Ecoboost Falcon

Yes it is.

Lets get back to the topic please.

[2011G6E]

Back on topic...

Any idea what prices will be like yet? Especially stuff like the G cars...if they simply must keep using that stupid and meaningless nomencliture instead of a proper name like Fairmont and Fairmont Ghia.

I recall that one thing that was a problem with the Commodore Four was the price differential...or lack thereof...a quick squiz at a Wheels magazine from 1982 shows that the four cylinder SL cost $10,583, the six SL cost (unbelievably), the same $10,583, and it was the same with the SL/X as well...identical pricing. Why bother buying the four cylinder...even if it meant cheaper rego and insurance...if you aren't going to save any money at purchase time? One would assume the smaller engine version would be cheaper, but that wasn't the case. Fuel wasn;t an issue then either...it was only about 36 cents a liter, so fuel economy didn't really rate highly on most peoples requirements when buying a new car...there were a lot of other priorities to ask about first. Now it's a different story of course.
In early 1984 I paid $6500 for our 1980 VC SL...about the same as six cylinder Commodores on the lot at the time. What attracted me was that I needed a family sized car, something newer than the old cars I'd had, and working on a farm and being on a tight budget the difference in rego was actually attractive to me.

Nowadays though, buyers have much easier access to finance, and someone with a very tight budget isn't going to be shopping for a brand new Falcon, so Ford is going to have to price it sharply to make people bother to look at it, or they're going to say "Why bother"?

[Rodge]

^^ Except that IMO the market is almost obsessed with fuel efficiency figures like perhaps never before, they'll see something like 8.3 litres per 100 km's and think they're soooooo much better off.

But for the average motorist who might do 15,000 km's when you factor in the need ? to use higher octane fuel in the turbo motor, the extra servicing costs involved with a turbo and possible questions surrounding deep cycle maintenance, (turbo replacement), are they really that much better off, (if any) over the long haul compared to the almost legendary reliability and longevity of the inline six at 9.9. litres per 100 km's running 91 Octane fuel

Over the long haul I doubt there's much in it for the average motorist, fleets and high mileage operators may see some material benifet.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Rodge

are they really that much better off, (if any) over the long haul compared to the almost legendary reliability and longevity of the inline six at 9.9. litres per 100 km's running 91 Octane fuel

9.9 average ... but what about around town and traffic, where most people are driving? this is where the six is pretty woeful.

i would hope the ecoboost fares much better in this regard.

[Rodge]

^^ Fair point and I agree that will be a crucial factor.

Here's the spec details of the 2.0 Ecoboost as fitted to the European tune applied in their Mondeo, (Note it uses 95 Octane fuel no matter whether it runs the 149 Kw 300nm, (local Mondeo Ecoboost) tune or the Europena one detailed below.

I note maximum torque is achieved across a lower rev spectrum than the Australian Ecoboost tune applicable in the Mondeo here but 340 nm's is still at very useable revs, 1,900 - 3,500 so should be good to drive, also transietn over-boost takes torque to within 10% of the inline six when its required for overtaking. To be fair though the inline six makes 198KW's and 409 nm's on 95 RON fuel.

Engine Type 2.0L ECOBOOST 240 PS/176.5 KW
Displacement (cc) 1999
Bore (mm) 87.5
Stroke (mm) 83.1
Fuel type, grade 95 RON
Max power (ISO kW/PS) 176.5/240
At engine speed (rpm) 6000
Max torque (ISO Nm) 340 (360 in transient overboost condition)
At engine speed (rpm) 1900 - 3500
Compression ratio 10.0:1
Cylinders 4
Cylinder head DOHC Gravity die cast aluminium alloy with sintered valve guides and seats
Cylinder block High pressure die casting aluminium alloy with bed plate
Crankshaft Cast iron with 47mm-diameter crankpins, eight counterweights, five 52mm-diameter main bearings and damped front pulley
Valves per cylinder 4
Valve gear Single chain
Included angle between valves 39°
Valve sizes (mm) Intake 32.5
Exhaust 28.0
Turbocharger Borg Warner K03 low inertia integrated turbo system
Camshaft drive Single chain
Pistons Die cast
Connecting rods Drop forged & fractured
Engine management Bosch MED17 with CAN-Bus and individual knock control
Fuel injection High pressure petrol direct injection with 7-hole injectors
Ignition Coil on plug, distributor less electronic
Emission controls Close coupled three way catalyst system with heated oxygen sensors and catalyst monitor sensors post catalyst
Emission level Euro Stage V

[TMC]

Does it really need to run on high octane fuel? I know it has high compression and a turbo, but it's direct injected, so nothing can preignite before the fuel is injected. From what I read this motor can have multiple injection pulses per intake stroke. It will make more power on high octane fuel, but it may not need it.

[chevypower]

Ford seems proud of the fact that the EcoBoost engines in the USA can happily run on 85 octane.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Rodge

^^ Fair point and I agree that will be a crucial factor.

Here's the spec details of the 2.0 Ecoboost as fitted to the European tune applied in their Mondeo, (Note it uses 95 Octane fuel no matter whether it runs the 149 Kw 300nm, (local Mondeo Ecoboost) tune or the Europena one detailed below.

I note maximum torque is achieved across a lower rev spectrum than the Australian Ecoboost tune applicable in the Mondeo here but 340 nm's is still at very useable revs, 1,900 - 3,500 so should be good to drive, also transietn over-boost takes torque to within 10% of the inline six when its required for overtaking. To be fair though the inline six makes 198KW's and 409 nm's on 95 RON fuel.

The American Ecoboost in Explorer produces 179 Kw @5500 and 365 nm @ 1750-4000
and does it on regular unleaded....

The original goal for Ecoboost Falcon was a 20% improvement in combine fuel economy.
I gather that they have achieved that but are trying to squeeze a bit more to match Camry.....

Our information is that Ford will announce a combined figure not more than 8.1L/100km for the EcoBoost when it hits the market.
That's not quite the low-7L/100km mark that Mercedes-Benz, for instance, claims for its E 250 petrol model, but it's impressive nonetheless…
But don't bet against a 7.0L/100km Falcon just yet, as there's still a month or so of tweaking to come…

[vztrt]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/151065/f...-best-engines/

Ecoboost I4 named in the worlds ten best engines.

The four-cylinder EcoBoost engine set to power the Ford Falcon in 2012 has been named among this year’s Ward’s 10 Best Engines.

The 179kW/366Nm tune of the 2.0-litre direct-injection turbocharged petrol engine was awarded for its application in the North American Ford Edge SUV. The Falcon EcoBoost is expected to get a slightly different tune of the engine – potentially matching the European Mondeo’s 177kW/340Nm output – although the basic construction is shared with the award-winning powerplant in the Edge.

The judges said the engine earned a prize for its “uncanny ability to motivate the Edge”; a mid-size SUV “that normally would require six-cylinder power but does quite fine without it”.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Got any proof that the I-6 went through the same torture test as the 3.5 EB F-150? Or just your personal guarantee? I just can't imagine Ford putting a 5 tonne load on the back of a Falcon, while it does 130km/h around a race track for 24 hours. I also don't know of Ford taking that same 4.0L I-6 engine and racing it in Baja. You guarantee that it has done the same stuff is the first I have heard about it. I suppose all this was done with the direct injection system fitted to it also!

Go back and read what I said, I didn't say it had done all the same durability tests as the Ecoboost V6, just SOME of them. PD do exactly the same dyno tests as what all Ford global do, every engine they make has to pass all the same durability tests as the others, otherwise it doesn't go on sale until it passes. I've seen the dyno cells and watched some of the tests personally.

They used braked trailers to simulate heavy loads, but of course they don't use as much weight as an F series does, its just plain idiotic to say they do, the Falcon is not designed to handle those sort of loads. Its just about as idiotic to think Ford would race an I6 in Baja as well. They are 2 different vehicles designed for 2 different purposes. Do you even think before you post.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Go back and read what I said....

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I6 has to pass the same torturous durability tests as every other Ford engine has too.

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I didn't say it had done all the same durability tests as the Ecoboost V6, just SOME of them

Could have fooled me and everyone else!

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Its just about as idiotic to think Ford would race an I6 in Baja as well. They are 2 different vehicles designed for 2 different purposes.

No kidding, so why did you guarantee they go through the same tests?
Therefore, I go back to the question, what would be the point of making a 4.0 EcoBoost, when the 3.5 is already over-engineered for a Falcon? (Which isn't a bad thing).

Anyway, whatever, you win....

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by jpd80

The American Ecoboost in Explorer produces 179 Kw @5500 and 365 nm @ 1750-4000
and does it on regular unleaded....

The original goal for Ecoboost Falcon was a 20% improvement in combine fuel economy.
I gather that they have achieved that but are trying to squeeze a bit more to match Camry.....

Those are impressive numbers and if they can squeeze a bit more out of it and get the fuel consumption number to start with a 7 point something, even if its 7.9 that would be an extraordinary effort considering the size of the car and almost lineball performance with the regular I6, not to forget the weight saving over the nose. Interesting...

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Those are impressive numbers and if they can squeeze a bit more out of it and get the fuel consumption number to start with a 7 point something, even if its 7.9 that would be an extraordinary effort considering the size of the car and almost lineball performance with the regular I6, not to forget the weight saving over the nose. Interesting...

New Camry may have improved fuel economy considerably but having Ecoboost Falcon breathing down
its neck with even more room has to be a good thing, maybe Toyota is about to feel the pinch......

Whatever happens I hope the fuel economy scores remain attainable by Ecoboost buyers,
the worst thing you can do is disappoint buyers with magic looking but elusive economy numbers.
Ford know this and is working hard to close the gap with camry and leave Holden behind....

I notice that Ford does better when they listen to customers and fill their product holes
and when that's done, the pressure on Falcon to be multifunctional will be less,
Ecosport, Kuga, Figo will definitly add sales and the knock on effect of more
shoe leather in showrooms should ensure that other models do well too.

More products = more sales = more advertising = more sales......
Good times are coming.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Could have fooled me and everyone else!
No kidding, so why did you guarantee they go through the same tests?
Therefore, I go back to the question, what would be the point of making a 4.0 EcoBoost, when the 3.5 is already over-engineered for a Falcon? (Which isn't a bad thing).

Anyway, whatever, you win....

Obviously the tests Ford used to show off the Ecoboost V6 aren't standard durability tests, they were just used to promote the product, just like the Ranger pulling the train.

Do you think a Fiesta has to tow logs through the forest to pass Fords durability tests. The tests I was referring too are standard Ford durability tests, which are quite punishing, not these extra promotional tow tests that Ford designed for the F series.

The dyno tests they used to promote the EB V6 are the same ones used though.

But anyway back onto Ecoboost Falcon. They are saying cars will be in showrooms in March. Seems like they have pushed it back a little further again maybe, unless they still plan to launch in Feb with deliveries starting later.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

But anyway back onto Ecoboost Falcon. They are saying cars will be in showrooms in March. Seems like they have pushed it back a little further again maybe, unless they still plan to launch in Feb with deliveries starting later.

Maybe stock build up in late February early March?

[Bossxr8]

Thats the way they have been doing it, building stock for 5 or 6 weeks before they are sent to dealers.

But they were talking a January/Feb release, so maybe nothing has changed. They would still probably do the media release in late Jan/early Feb.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Thats the way they have been doing it, building stock for 5 or 6 weeks before they are sent to dealers.

But they were talking a January/Feb release, so maybe nothing has changed. They would still probably do the media release in late Jan/early Feb.

January is usually pretty quiet, maybe Ford want SZ and FGII to run along on factory orders only
while completing last minute tweaks on Ecoboost cars, maybe trying to match new Camry?

Boss, just noticed Broady on Near maps (Nov 17) hardly any cars on the grass
and most appear to be Territory with a few Falcons and Utes...
Elizabeth looked to be about two thirds full, lots of Commodore sedan and Sportwagons.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Elizabeth looked to be about two thirds full, lots of Commodore sedan and Sportwagons.

Little wonder they're bombarding us with 'red plate' runout deals on the telly.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by jpd80

January is usually pretty quiet, maybe Ford want SZ and FGII to run along on factory orders only
while completing last minute tweaks on Ecoboost cars, maybe trying to match new Camry?

Boss, just noticed Broady on Near maps (Nov 17) hardly any cars on the grass
and most appear to be Territory with a few Falcons and Utes...
Elizabeth looked to be about two thirds full, lots of Commodore sedan and Sportwagons.

And those cars on grass are probably just waiting to be sent to dealers for customer orders. Stock levels are exactly where they want them to be.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Little wonder they're bombarding us with 'red plate' runout deals on the telly.

They are absolutely desperate to hang onto their number 1 tag for Conformadore and will stop at nothing to get it. They will resort to every dirty trick in the book. If they have to register a thousand or so Commos as "demos", they will do it.

Who cares if they can't sell them later right? This is GM we're talking here, its build the numbers up first, worry about what to do with them later, and to hell with profit margins.

[XR_Strider_GuY]

The release of the 4 cylinder turbo Falcon is the mid 80's all over again. I think the jury is out there whether this will be a good move or not in terms of sales increase.

Certainly the specifications on paper and from articles seem positive. When I mentioned mid 80's, does everyone remember when Ford released the Turbo Thunderbird in 1986??


With a 2.3L turbo engine which sold along side the V6 and V8 variants the Turbo Thunderbird lasted for 5 years from 1983-1988. They created the 4 cylinder variant due to the lack luster sales of previous generation Thunderbird's. Power in 1988 was rated at 142kw@4400rpm and 326Nm@3000rpm. At 5133mm in length the Thunderbird was no small car.

[prydey]

i think people need to think much broader than our own backyard or simply ford or gm.

small capacity direct injection turbo's is the way forward for the petrol engine. all manufacturers are doing it. its not like ford are starting the trend. they are simply joining it.