Why does the 2015/2016 Falcon need to have a V6?

[4.0i OHC]

I don't know the full story regarding the future of the Falcon (and don't claim to). Because of this, I have an important question.

I hear a lot of chatter stating that local production of the I6 is going to end at 2015/2016. In order to find a replacement engine, Ford US are going to provide the Falcon with the 3.5 V6. I'll provide an alternative suggestion.

Why not just leave the Falcon with the EcoBoost 2.0 as a base engine (and provide the 5.0 V8 N/A as a performance option)? It has a very flat torque curve, and is quite refined (two things that, from what I have seen, the 3.5 V6 can't match).

In my opinion, a high revving go-nowhere motor doesn't suit the Falcon; it needs to have plenty of torque down low (which, from what I have heard, the I4T has).

Fair enough, the EcoBoost 4 cyl is not quite the I6, but with the reduced weight at the front of the car, the Falcon may actually handle better (not that it isn't superior to the competition). Besides, in these times, fuel economy is a great concern, and the EcoBoost is almost certain to deliver. The inclusion of technology such as direct injection may also help rid people of the misconception that the Falcon is a technological dinosaur.

Yes, I haven't driven a Taurus, but unless the V6 is some sort of technological marvel which is able to alleviate the problems inherent in the design of a V6 (and from what I have heard, it isn't), I just can't get excited about the Falcon having a V6.

Another option: If Ford US are not willing to do this, why not can it, and do what Ford does in most markets, and offer the Mondeo as the largest car in the Ford stable. Let the old girl die with some dignity; I would much rather have no Falcon at all than one which approximates the Commodore with a better auto.

We've already seen one formerly proud brand name shattered in the Focus. I will sell all my Ford merch if I ever see a V6 in the Falcon. It will be a great shame.

What does everyone think? Would you be happy to see just the I4T and Coyote V8 in the Falcon?

[jpd80]

Ford NA uses the 3.7 V6 in Mustang and F150, I wouldn't call it a high revving go nowhere engine.....

[4.0i OHC]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Ford NA uses the 3.7 V6 in Mustang and F150, I wouldn't call it a high revving go nowhere engine.....

3.7 Mustang V6 (blue line):

4.0 I6:

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by fairlaneman

3.7 Mustang V6 (blue line):

Those two graphs are not directly comparable, the Mustang readings are at the back wheels
while the Falcon's readings has been given corrections to approximate flywheel power outputs.

I've recently driven the later US vehicles with v6 engines and can say that I found their performance comparable
to our Falcon I-6, the idea that Falcon will become a souless car with a V6 is just emotional clap trap.

Bring on a smaller and lighter Falcon with higher HP V6s, EB I-4, V8 and V6 diesel
All possible if Falcon/Territory share power trains with a future Mustang

[nt0351]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Those two graphs are not directly comparable, the Mustang readings are at the back wheels
while the Falcon's readings has been given corrections to approximate flywheel power outputs.

I've recently driven the later US vehicles with v6 engines and can say that I found their performance comparable
to our Falcon I-6, the idea that Falcon will become a souless car with a V6 is just emotional clap trap.

Bring on a smaller and lighter Falcon with higher HP V6s, EB I-4, V8 and V6 diesel
All possible if Falcon/Territory share power trains with a future Mustang

a V6 can never be as refined or punchy as a well sorted IL6 , we are not talking about outright performance figures ,..we are talking about down low guts ,.torque ,..balls ,..a bit of momentum when you put the foot down ,..how else can i put it ,....thats sadly lacking in the V6 ,all it wants to do when you sink the pedal is have a bit of a think and let out a huge rev
go & drive a commodore and if you reckon its not souless than there's clap trap going on in your head

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by nt0351

a V6 can never be as refined or punchy as a well sorted IL6 , we are not talking about outright performance figures ,..we are talking about down low guts ,.torque ,..balls ,..a bit of momentum when you put the foot down ,..how else can i put it ,....thats sadly lacking in the V6 ,all it wants to do when you sink the pedal is have a bit of a think and let out a huge rev
go & drive a commodore and if you reckon its not souless than there's clap trap going on in your head

When it comes to V6 engines, the Ford 3.7 is on another level compared to the 3.6 V6 SIDI


At least I have driven the Ford V6 engine you are dismissing, I think you are sucking someone else's opinion....

All the R & D is going into corporate engines, falcon's I-6 is here for another five years,
after that is anyone's guess and what V6 is available then is also anyone's guess..

[4.0i OHC]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Those two graphs are not directly comparable, the Mustang readings are at the back wheels
while the Falcon's readings has been given corrections to approximate flywheel power outputs.

I've recently driven the later US vehicles with v6 engines and can say that I found their performance comparable
to our Falcon I-6, the idea that Falcon will become a souless car with a V6 is just emotional clap trap.

Bring on a smaller and lighter Falcon with higher HP V6s, EB I-4, V8 and V6 diesel
All possible if Falcon/Territory share power trains with a future Mustang

How embarrasment!

I can't read the old language, so I didn't even realise. Anyway, the general shape of the torque curve (and the fact that it revs to 7000 rpm) should give you the gist of what I was trying to demonstrate.

If the future Mustang shares a power train with the Falcon, does that mean we'll have the 'Mustang bred' Falcon again?

Edit: Out of curiosity, what do you think the V6 does better than the I6? The figures tell me it'll just do everything worse, but since you've driven it and I haven't, I'd like to hear what you think of it

[AMGC63]

Falcon has zero chance of survival without dropping the I6 and adopting the US V6.
The I6 is too long to accomodate more efficient body shapes with contemporary styling and has no market demand outside of AU.

[4.0i OHC]

Originally Posted by AMGC63

Falcon has zero chance of survival without dropping the I6 and adopting the US V6.
The I6 is too long to accomodate more efficient body shapes with contemporary styling and has no market demand outside of AU.

That's disappointing. However, my point was that, as an I6 replacement, why not just use the 2.0 EcoBoost rather than the Taurus V6?

[AMGC63]

Originally Posted by fairlaneman

That's disappointing. However, my point was that, as an I6 replacement, why not just use the 2.0 EcoBoost rather than the Taurus V6?

There's no reason why a V6 cant replicate what the I6 does in every way, but in a more compact package which creates far more global demand, versitility and compliance.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by AMGC63

There's no reason why a V6 cant replicate what the I6 does in every way, but in a more compact package which creates far more global demand, versitility and compliance.

a V6 will never be a good replacement for the Falcon I6 to start with in engineering terms a V6 is inferior to an inline configuration. they have to use complex balance components to get any where near an I6 for smoothness. the falcon I6 as it stands now is a well engineered powerful and torquey engine, the only advantage of a V6 over an I6 is it is shorter making it easier to fit in.
the demise of the I6 will be a black day for our automotive industry. who in there right mind would spend decades developing an engine to the stage of the falcon I6 then when it is finally a great performance package say sorry we don't want it now

[AMGC63]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

a V6 will never be a good replacement for the Falcon I6 to start with in engineering terms a V6 is inferior to an inline configuration. they have to use complex balance components to get any where near an I6 for smoothness. the falcon I6 as it stands now is a well engineered powerful and torquey engine, the only advantage of a V6 over an I6 is it is shorter making it easier to fit in.
the demise of the I6 will be a black day for our automotive industry. who in there right mind would spend decades developing an engine to the stage of the falcon I6 then when it is finally a great performance package say sorry we don't want it now

Honda, Toyota and Nissan would disagree... Infact Ford AU are probably the last manufacturer on earth to adopt a V6 engine in thier locally manufactured large cars.
For the purposes of what the Falcon is used for a V6 engine configuration would be more then capable of achieving what the current engine provides.

[GT69]

I guess there has been money spend on ecolpi, and only giving it 4 - 5 years on production may be a little short. I suspect a last minute 'we'll keep the I6' if the falcon continues in 2015-16. It would make sense to drop it and move to global engine platforms. But then again, the FPV 335 motor seems to be an orphan as well, with shelby/ford coming up with their own supercharging set ups. All seems alittle backward.

Personally, I cant see Taurus coming here, I think mondeo will be the successor if falcon is killed off. With Ranger picking up the slack for utilities. In saying that, no doubt if Ford AUS get the funding from the government, the falcon will get a face lift with I6 continuing.\

My thoughts anyway.

[vanman_75]

Love the i6 in my au but other than the Aussie job loss really not concerned if its a v6 it would have ample power for me either way , so if it keeps falcon alive bring it on .
I think most of the general public would have no idea what's under the bonnet anyway ! If possible for aus to build the v6 here then I would be happier again but I don't think it will happen unfortunately .but me like the trend at the moment get more versatility out of a suv so my next work hack will be a territory me thinks

[Franco Cozzo]

I reckon they should ditch the I6 and make the EcoBoost I4 their main engine. Could be the next SR20

[kinksta]

I love the inline 6! BUT, if it was the V6 in the Nissan GT-R ehehe!

[nt0351]

a Falcon with a V6 would just become soul less much like the commodore,

they should keep the IL6 or retire our Aussie icon altogether.

bring in whatever but dont call it a Falcon.

Ive recently driven a V6 stang whilst over there ,..all rev & noise and not much poise to it at all ,..I took it straight back to hertz and said " hey this one's missing two cylinders " ,....they laughed and upgraded me to a real one ,...now where talking !

[sgt_doofey]

Why not the EcoBoost V6?

[FGII-XR6]

at the end of the day there are 2 words that would turn anyone off a V6 Commodore (Buick) V6, remember the VN?

[RAPID_BA]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

at the end of the day there are 2 words that would turn anyone off a V6 Commodore (Buick) V6, remember the VN?

The vn was no slouch, it tore strips off the ford i6 of the same day (ea and eb).

Yes they felt like you were holding on to a jackhammer when taking off but damn they were quick. Off the line, used to put 2-3 lengths on the ea i6 straight away.

[EFFalcon]

Originally Posted by HULK_BA

The vn was no slouch, it tore strips off the ford i6 of the same day (ea and eb).

Yes they felt like you were holding on to a jackhammer when taking off but damn they were quick. Off the line, used to put 2-3 lengths on the ea i6 straight away.

Can't blame the motor for that one unfortunately.
Talk about manuals and its a different story, but in auto guise, the EA was a slouch, worsened by the 3 speed in early ones.
but not exactly helped with the 3.08's in the rear coupled with the BTR.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by EFFalcon

Can't blame the motor for that one unfortunately.
Talk about manuals and its a different story, but in auto guise, the EA was a slouch, worsened by the 3 speed in early ones.
but not exactly helped with the 3.08's in the rear coupled with the BTR.

i dont see your point!

holden's are 3.08 rear in auto guise.. 3.45 in manuel!!

arn't the EA/EB 3.23:1?? lower geared?

[SpoolMan]

It would need to be a twin turbo for me to buy it..

[mik]

it`s hard to see much point going v6 other than space considerations should the falcon shrink a bit and warming up a little quicker with alloy block, the inline 6 is a good power unit and very easy to turn the wick up, and after 50 years of upgrades/development, it seems crazy to me to chuck all that away if and when the time comes,
but probably it all comes down to the bean counters at the end of the day.

[Raptor]

There's a 2015/2016 Falcon

Not so sure about that.


Falcon = I6 + RWD (+ a few niche V8's), anything else isn't a Falcon

[Joe5619]

All these people that keep going on & on & on & on & on about the I6, get over it!! As a buyer of BRAND NEW Falcons, I don't give a stuff if it is V6 or I6 as long as it makes all the right numbers... Bring on an Ecoboost V6 any day of the current I6.. That is high vs. low tech no matter what any I6 lover tries to tell me!! And engine that has over 120 patents (Ecoboost) vs. one that has none (I6) speaks volumes!!

And people going on about a soulless commodore.. truelly dont know where to start with you!!

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

All these people that keep going on & on & on & on & on about the I6, get over it!! As a buyer of BRAND NEW Falcons, I don't give a stuff if it is V6 or I6 as long as it makes all the right numbers... Bring on an Ecoboost V6 any day of the current I6.. That is high vs. low tech no matter what any I6 lover tries to tell me!! And engine that has over 120 patents (Ecoboost) vs. one that has none (I6) speaks volumes!!

And people going on about a soulless commodore.. truelly dont know where to start with you!!

so true the F6 is a low tech boat anchor [/sarcasm] 310 KW 565 NM ( only 5 NM less than a GT) from a 4.0L 6 is up there with GT level performance, not bad for a "low tech engine"
I would stack an F6 against any V6 ( and most V8) production car available for under $100K
how does a patent ( or 120 ) make the engine superior?

[4.0i OHC]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

so true the F6 is a low tech boat anchor [/sarcasm] 310 KW 565 NM from a 4.0L 6 is up there with GT level performance, not bad for a "low tech engine"
I would stack an F6 against any V6 ( and most V8) production car available for under $100K
how does a patent ( or 120 ) make the engine superior?

Exactly. Anyway, why does everyone consider the Dual VCT 4.0i OHC to be 'low tech', when the 3.5 V6 only has inlet VCT?

By the way, I consider the I6 engine layout to be 'high tech'

[AMGC63]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

so true the F6 is a low tech boat anchor [/sarcasm] 310 KW 565 NM ( only 5 NM less than a GT) from a 4.0L 6 is up there with GT level performance, not bad for a "low tech engine"
I would stack an F6 against any V6 ( and most V8) production car available for under $100K
how does a patent ( or 120 ) make the engine superior?

Why does every validation revolve around outright engine outputs? Nobody can drive their family sedan on the roads at those levels anyway.

If that's the case hows the smaller capacity Nissan GTR engine stack up against the F6 engine on a dyno? Or Nissan 370Z compare around a circuit comparred to a F6..?

Both clear wins to the V6 but both as pointless as each other..

[Ford Falcon XR6]

Originally Posted by AMGC63

Why does every validation revolve around outright engine outputs? Nobody can drive their family sedan on the roads at those levels anyway.

If that's the case hows the smaller capacity Nissan GTR engine stack up against the F6 engine on a dyno? Or Nissan 370Z compare around a circuit comparred to a F6..?

Both clear wins to the V6 but both as pointless as each other..

Both very different classes of cars