Falcon EcoBoost: The Fuel Efficiency Australians Need with the Performance They Want - Page 2

johnno3 · 01-02-2012, 03:39 PM

Well done Ford Australia! A good news story.

This may have the potential to open an export market for a fuel efficient large rear wheel drive platform. Falcons to the USA perhaps?? Now wouldn't that be a sweetner....

tweeked · 01-02-2012, 03:45 PM

So can a P plater drive one?

Could be a great example of a stupid system if that can drive the 200kw car but not the 179 kw one

**Polyal** · 01-02-2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnno3

Well done Ford Australia! A good news story.

This may have the potential to open an export market for a fuel efficient large rear wheel drive platform. Falcons to the USA perhaps?? Now wouldn't that be a sweetner....

Without looking to much into its my belief is that Ford US use Ford AUS as a test bed. This is the first example of EB4 in a RWD car, and a large one at that. Maybe, just maybe, it all goes well it hardens the case for GRWD.

Its like when companies run marketing campaigns in little states or cities before going national to see the reaction (theres a term for it but I cant remember right now).

falconnut · 01-02-2012, 03:49 PM

I wonder what power figures we will see when the tuners get a hold of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweeked

So can a P plater drive one?

Could be a great example of a stupid system if that can drive the 200kw car but not the 179 kw one

Obviously they wont be able to, since they cant drive a 200kw v8 or turbo but they can drive a 200kw+ NA Straight 6

Joe5619 · 01-02-2012, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Who cares about performance?? The primary buyers for this car are going to be fleets that won't buy anything with over 200g/klm CO2 emissions, and the odd family buyer who want a large car without the thirst and the boofy size of an SUV

And that is a problem.. G6 & G6E are both over 200g/klm.

I'm actually a little disappointed with 8.5 from the higher end models.. I'd really like to know why??

8.1 for XT is great, but 8.5 doen't look so good & then over 200 for CO2 as well..

tranquilized · 01-02-2012, 04:13 PM

Maybe the XT is running low resistance tyres, or some other economy measure, that wouldn't be as accepted in a higher-end model?

Joe5619 · 01-02-2012, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Maybe the XT is running low resistance tyres, or some other economy measure, that wouldn't be as accepted in a higher-end model?

If that is the case, then put these tyres on the I6 XT & 9.9 becomes 9.5??

Blue Blooded · 01-02-2012, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by falconnut

Obviously they wont be able to, since they cant drive a 200kw v8 or turbo but they can drive a 200kw+ NA Straight 6

I heard Ford is applying for an exemption to allow P platers to drive them

tranquilized · 01-02-2012, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe5619

If that is the case, then put these tyres on the I6 XT & 9.9 becomes 9.5??

Yeah true, it'll be interesting to hear the official explanation. Surely there is little difference in weight.

flappist · 01-02-2012, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweeked

So can a P plater drive one?

Could be a great example of a stupid system if that can drive the 200kw car but not the 179 kw one

You mean like needing a manual license to drive BA autos becase they had a "manual mode".

That embarrassed a few of the superheroes in Makerston St.

falconnut · 01-02-2012, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Blooded

I heard Ford is applying for an exemption to allow P platers to drive them

Its not like their quick exactly and they are hell of alot safter then faster econoboxes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

You mean like needing a manual license to drive BA autos becase they had a "manual mode".

That embarrassed a few of the superheroes in Makerston St.

Wow thats RETARDED.

Joe5619 · 01-02-2012, 04:47 PM

This link says Ford has said the fuel difference is due to wait difference

http://www.caradvice.com.au/157100/f...er-same-price/

That is a huge worry if 50kg can make the car 5% more thirty.. What happens when a few people get inside??

falconnut · 01-02-2012, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe5619

This link says Ford has said the fuel difference is due to wait difference

http://www.caradvice.com.au/157100/f...er-same-price/

That is a huge worry if 50kg can make the car 5% more thirty.. What happens when a few people get inside??

Not much happened to my fuel economy in my car when i had 5 people (inc me) in it

Probably lost maybe 100km range if that.

flappist · 01-02-2012, 05:03 PM

One good thing about the T4 is that the bias of govco fleets buying these instead of I6 will lead to an increase in second hand retail and therefore trade in price for I6 falcons.

With a bit of luck that will lead to more retail new sales with the "I can get one with low kms for half price in a year" option being removed.

Road_Warrior · 01-02-2012, 05:13 PM

Hmm looks like the caveat on the fuel consumption figures is based on 95RON unleaded:

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...25799700156F61

Quote:

But the fuel-efficiency gains will come at a cost at the pump, with the new four-pot model – due in showrooms in April – running on 95RON petrol, rather than the standard 91RON unleaded of all other petrol-powered local large cars, including the Holden Commodore and Toyota Aurion.

The high-octane fuel is required for the high-tech 2.0-litre European-made engine, which boasts both direct injection and turbo-charging to deliver six-cylinder-like power and torque with four-cylinder-like efficiency.

Road_Warrior · 01-02-2012, 05:15 PM

Ecoboost not planned for the Falcon ute or Territory either, apparently.

Rodge · 01-02-2012, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe5619

This link says Ford has said the fuel difference is due to weight difference

http://www.caradvice.com.au/157100/f...er-same-price/

That is a huge worry if 50kg can make the car 5% more thirsty.. What happens when a few people get inside??

Fixed that for you a bit, hope you don't mind. This is indeed a bit disturbing all the more so as there's no difference in consumption at all between the various models in I6 guise at 9.9. litres per 100 km's.

Simple extrapolation suggests adding in another 100 kg's, (i.e. only one full size passenger to each car) and the I6 and EB4 engines would be lineball in terms of fuel efficiency. I'm sure it won't be quite that bad for the EB4 but it does beg the question in terms of multiple passangers, hilly terrain or towing doesn't it ? Add in the need to run the EB4 on 95 Octane and what are the fuel savings going to be in the real world ?

PoweredByCNG · 01-02-2012, 05:30 PM

Ecoboost LPI anyone?

Nikked · 01-02-2012, 05:37 PM

I always love the typical comments from the meat-head brigade...

I seen comments on facebook like:

"ford should have bought the 5.8 back instead"

I still can beleive people are compareing it to the old starfire, chalk and cheese...

And of course there are people who can't get around the fact that technology can give as an economical but powerful 4cyl engine...

This is the car that has the potential to lift the Falcons number game...

The falcon is dead, long live the falcon.

**Polyal** · 01-02-2012, 05:39 PM

Mate there are some drop kicks on FB thats for sure. Its shame some of that stuff is public and posted by Ford supporters.

Brazen · 01-02-2012, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Hmm looks like the caveat on the fuel consumption figures is based on 95RON unleaded:

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...25799700156F61

I wonder what the fuel consumption will be on 91RON? As fleet cards used by government and other larger fleets dont allow you to buy premium unleaded.

I imagine wouldnt be a big difference.

**Polyal** · 01-02-2012, 05:43 PM

Maybe DI engine need 95 as a min?

Franco Cozzo · 01-02-2012, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweeked

So can a P plater drive one?

Could be a great example of a stupid system if that can drive the 200kw car but not the 179 kw one

In Victoria it would be banned, unless it joins the list of the Dihatsu Copen and Suzuki Cappacino?

I think to the general public, they should distance themselves from the 4 cylinder part and advertise it as "EcoBoost" because the baby boomers will be turned off the product thinking of the Starfire Commodores they bought for their first new cars.

Brazen · 01-02-2012, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polyal

Maybe DI engine need 95 as a min?

The DI commodore can run on 91RON its 8.9L/100km is based on that fuel.

Im sure EcoBoost will be able to run on 91RON simply because fleets wouldnt buy it otherwise.

It will probably just have lower power and torque, who knows? maybe fuel consumption will be the same on either fuel.

csv8 · 01-02-2012, 05:56 PM

Sorry, as good as the tech is..if I was looking for a big 4 cylinder car,,it would be the Mondeo, Kia Optima or Hyundai's i45. Falcon to me means a big 6..

Brazen · 01-02-2012, 06:03 PM

Hmm re-reading the article it sounds like it can only take 95 RON as a minimum?? Not a dealbreaker for many though when you are getting such good economy and performance. I just dont know what that means for fleets.

Joe5619 · 01-02-2012, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brazen

Hmm re-reading the article it sounds like it can only take 95 RON as a minimum?? Not a dealbreaker for many though when you are getting such good economy and performance. I just dont know what that means for fleets.

I think 91RON is getting phasing out this year anyway?? So either E90 or 95RON will be avaliable (or is that a NSW thing)

falconnut · 01-02-2012, 06:08 PM

so no e10 then?

Smoke Pursuit · 01-02-2012, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csv8

Sorry, as good as the tech is..if I was looking for a big 4 cylinder car,,it would be the Mondeo, Kia Optima or Hyundai's i45. Falcon to me means a big 6..

Man you are so negative about the Falcon... Time to get out and smell the flowers... how you can expect a car that is built for 20,000 users a year to be so much more then it already is?? its a great car.

If people like yourself actually got out and bought them instead talking about it, as you do then Ford Motor Company would be so much better off...

Your BF Fairmont was not a market leader in any respect, but you still bought it!!

2011G6E · 01-02-2012, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobramad

Best thing would be to drive them back to back. As you said, at cruise, the consumption figures will make for an interesting comparison. Remember the good old Starfire 4 that GM-H fitted to VH Commodores? Used more fuel and delivered less performance than the 6cyl models did.

Yes, we had a VC Commodore SL with the Starfire four backed with a Traumatic auto gearbox. Fairly slow off the line...but not that slow...you have to remember that a Commodore at that time weighed only about 1300kg, so by largish four cylinder standards it wasn't too bad, probably similar to a two liter TE/TF Cortina in performance.
It was, basically, an idea whose time hadn't come...it was in fact a bit better on fuel than the six cylinder (if you drove it normally), and was certainly cheaper to run with cheaper rego and insurance costs.
I always wondered how it would have gone with a transplant for something later like a sweet SR20 in NA or even turbo form backed with a five speed...then you'd have room, comfort, and power as well.
Don't forget, Ford was only a whisker off fitting the old SOHC two liter from the Cortina to the XD...it was a very near thing indeed.

The four cylinder Falcon is an idea whose time has come...four cylinder engines are at a stage where there is really no reason to not have one in even a large car...on this very forum a while back some people made fun of the NA engine in the great new Toyota 86 for "only" putting out 200hp...the four cylinder in our VC Commodore put out about 60-odd kilowatts or 80hp, and was seen as quite a normal output for the era from a 2 liter.