Ecoboost Falcon review....well kind of

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by prydey

why not?

while im sure it could, i would think most buying the ecoboost would be doing it more for the possible fuel savings/ rego saving etc. ie fleets.
plus i think the i6 would be a better option for towing.

will be interesting to see how the sales figures go with ecoboost vs ecolpi.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

while im sure it could, i would think most buying the ecoboost would be doing it more for the possible fuel savings/ rego saving etc. ie fleets.
plus i think the i6 would be a better option for towing.

will be interesting to see how the sales figures go with ecoboost vs ecolpi.

I agree with you, Ecoboost targets a completely different group of buyers,
something we haven't seen Ford do since the introduction of the Territory.

Or more correctly, Territory targeted the majority of station wagon owners moving to SUVs
while perhaps Ecoboost targets people wanting a big car with power but with I-4 economy..

Fleets will jump all over EcoLPI while private buyers will head for Ecoboost.
Wouldn't it be funny if reality is the reverse of expectations.....

[prydey]

whilst it may be specifically targetted at a different group, it offers a different choice to any prospective falcon buyer without really compromising.

it is a 4cyl but is still almost every bit as capable as the 6cyl version for a large % of buyers. only a small % would buy the falcon soley for its slight performance advantage. every other area would be the same given it will be the same car.

i own a fg 6cyl, but never really use the full potential of its performance. before this i had an egas bf2 and whilst it was a little sluggish off the mark, even that had ample performance for what i needed it to do. from all reports the ecoboost should be somewhere in the middle of that range, likely not too far off the 6cyl, and if people can get over the stigma attached to a 4cyl in a large car, it will offer many families a very real alternative, even if you do tow the occasional trailer load of rubbish/furniture etc.

[Bossxr8]

Giving Ford access to fleets with 4 cylinder only policy is as good a reason as any. Opens up a whole new market Ford previously couldn't compete in with a locally made vehicle.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by prydey

it will offer many families a very real alternative, even if you do tow the occasional trailer load of rubbish/furniture etc.

We've got a Mazda 323 which has a 1.8L 4 cylinder petrol engine and it'll tow a 6X4 loaded up with green waste and general rubish down to the tip with no problems.

As long as they don't market it as "4 cylinder Falcon" and "Ecoboost Falcon" instead, then they'll be on a winner, theres still a big perception about 4 cylinder engines in large cars, but then again you see like 90% of the cars in Melbourne are soccer mum SUVs, like Honda CRV and they all have 4 cylinder petrol engines behind autos as well in the base models and people drive them fine?

Also lets face it, how many people do you see using Falcons for towing anything anyway? Even utes carrying loads for work?

I live in a rural area and the only Falcons/Commodore utes I see have big-*** 20" chrome wheels, slammed on its *** and not a mark in the back, mainly driven by a P plater.

I've only seen Landcruisers and other commercial dual cab 4X4s towing big loads around here, no Territories/Falcons doing any heavy work. Majority of the tradies out here have dual cab utes as well, if you travel on my roads at around 6AM in the morning, 95% of the cars on the roads are Hilux etc.

Another thing is people view the Commodore/Falcon as a Australia wide, sort of suited to anything Australia car, theres not many new Falcon/Commodore out this way either, theres a big mix of new cars out here from small to large.

[Deco28]

Holy cow, you guys will never be happy. I think it is a good test with what is actually available.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Deco28

Holy cow, you guys will never be happy. I think it is a good test with what is actually available.

They've overlooked some very simple aspects and basics so I can't understand why you think it's remotely close to being good.

Can you imagine what their next test would be...

Let's do another test and drive a Falcon in reverse and tell everyone we're the first to drive a fwd Falcon

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

while im sure it could, i would think most buying the ecoboost would be doing it more for the possible fuel savings/ rego saving etc. ie fleets.
plus i think the i6 would be a better option for towing.

will be interesting to see how the sales figures go with ecoboost vs ecolpi.

I6 wont be here past 2016, and whos to say they'll even bother putting a NA V6 in? If the I4T Falcon indeed has a similar power/weight to the I6 then they may as well try and get as many conventional buyers into it as possible, as well as the aforementioned target markets.

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

I6 wont be here past 2016, and whos to say they'll even bother putting a NA V6 in? If the I4T Falcon indeed has a similar power/weight to the I6 then they may as well try and get as many conventional buyers into it as possible, as well as the aforementioned target markets.

thats an interesting perspective...

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

thats an interesting perspective...

Well, I take the measured view that at the moment, the Ecoboost is not intended as a replacement for the I-6
However, who is to say what base power plant will be required in the next gen car beyond 2016...

[TP351]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

I wonder if they considered that a Falcon with ecoboost wouldn't weigh as much as a normal Falcon. Dumb idiots.

No-one has ever accused a journalist of being clever.........

Is it actually a real profession??

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Well, I take the measured view that at the moment, the Ecoboost is not intended as a replacement for the I-6
However, who is to say what base power plant will be required in the next gen car beyond 2016...

Considering the below, 4 litres will be over the top for a sedan if the "trucks" are to have something considerably less, albeit forced. Although the below is in relation to the recent CAFE regs (4.7l/100km) for 2025 but between now and then there we should see a fair bit of downsizing.

It's this torque curve of the Ecoboost that will make it acceptable for the masses, and I think FPV GTHO is very close to the mark, it might well turn out to be the standard offering in Ford's large car.


http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2011...p-powertrains/
Ford is said to be working on two all-new six-cylinder engines under a program codenamed “Nano.”

The Nano mills are expected to continue Ford’s efforts to shrink engine displacement while using turbocharging to boost power levels and return superior mileage. They are said to have displacements of approximately 2.6 or 2.7 liters and 3.0 liters and are expected to find their way into the next-gen Mustang as well as the F-150. Other Ford vehicles are likely to host these engines, as well.

The 3.0-liter V-6 is said to have a power target of approximately 300 to 315 horsepower, almost the same as today’s entry-level naturally aspirated 305-hp, 3.7-liter V-6. Instead of twin turbos, the Nano engines are expected to use so-called dual-stage turbocharging, where two different-sized turbos work independently or in tandem. One turbo is used at low speeds for drivability and fuel economy, while the second turbo spools up at high speeds to deliver extra power.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

I6 wont be here past 2016, and whos to say they'll even bother putting a NA V6 in? If the I4T Falcon indeed has a similar power/weight to the I6 then they may as well try and get as many conventional buyers into it as possible, as well as the aforementioned target markets.

given the time and effort they've just tipped into ecoLPi, i'd say the 6cyl could live on, but the n/a petrol version might be at risk.

i wonder how much of the ecoLPi system can be adapted onto a v6?

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by TP351

No-one has ever accused a journalist of being clever.........

Is it actually a real profession??

Fair point. The unfortunate thing is when they screw things up it still has the potential to alter people's perceptions. Screwing something up is only a small problem compared to those moments (and this isn't unique to any industry) where they'll blatantly lie to serve an agenda. In this case I'm not accusing them of the latter, but the former.

I think this is the first time I've seen an article where anyone has attempted such a test which turned out to be a pointless exercise.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by prydey

given the time and effort they've just tipped into ecoLPi, i'd say the 6cyl could live on, but the n/a petrol version might be at risk.

i wonder how much of the ecoLPi system can be adapted onto a v6?

I was about to mention this earlier..
Possible motors beyond 2016..
EB2.? as standard offering.
3.? V6 with LPi.
EB3.? replaces I6T.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Considering the below, 4 litres will be over the top for a sedan if the "trucks" are to have something considerably less, albeit forced. Although the below is in relation to the recent CAFE regs (4.7l/100km) for 2025 but between now and then there we should see a fair bit of downsizing.

It's this torque curve of the Ecoboost that will make it acceptable for the masses, and I think FPV GTHO is very close to the mark, it might well turn out to be the standard offering in Ford's large car.


http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2011...p-powertrains/
Ford is said to be working on two all-new six-cylinder engines under a program codenamed “Nano.”

The Nano mills are expected to continue Ford’s efforts to shrink engine displacement while using turbocharging to boost power levels and return superior mileage. They are said to have displacements of approximately 2.6 or 2.7 liters and 3.0 liters and are expected to find their way into the next-gen Mustang as well as the F-150. Other Ford vehicles are likely to host these engines, as well.

The 3.0-liter V-6 is said to have a power target of approximately 300 to 315 horsepower, almost the same as today’s entry-level naturally aspirated 305-hp, 3.7-liter V-6. Instead of twin turbos, the Nano engines are expected to use so-called dual-stage turbocharging, where two different-sized turbos work independently or in tandem. One turbo is used at low speeds for drivability and fuel economy, while the second turbo spools up at high speeds to deliver extra power.

This sounds suspiciously like a reworking and updating of the 3.0 V6 to make a baby V6 Ecoboost with 320 hp and 360 lb ft.
Such an engine would have added fuel efficiency, power and suitable for a broad range of vehicles..

[1TUFFUTE]

as much as that article sounds all good and no baaad news...its absolute rubbish from seemingly apprentice uneducated journos. I mean common..these guys live cars right...were just forum hacks once in a while....these guys should know that serious figure changing aspects such as GEARBOXES AND ENGINE TUNES are expected for the falcon. So why bother dribbling on about fuel consumption this an that and then coming up with 6% gains. That story is exactly what makes people loose interest and go...huh so what...no big deal...not much has changed so why bother.....and guess what...those people dont bother looking at the eco falcon again and ford loose out. LETS SEE SOME EDUCATED JOURNALIZM FOR A CHANGE....IDIOTS

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

I6 wont be here past 2016

Yes it will. I'd be very happy to see the petrol version dropped as long as the EcoLPi model sticks around.

Who would want to own a petrol version these days anyway?

[kpcart]

Originally Posted by jpd80

The crazy part was that this test wan't doen under valid conditions like the European Urban test cycle:

Urban cycle:
Mondeo EB 11.0 l/100 km
Falcon ZF 13.8 l/100 km


The fact that Mondeo scored 14.1 l/100 km and the Falcon used 15.4 l/100 km says that there was a lot more
fuel used by both cars than in the Urban test. I'm not sure what they hoped too achieve by running that type
of test but as most people already know, an I-4 subjected to lots of acceleration and power bursts at lower
speeds will use almost as much fuel as an I-6. Heavy fuel usage like that indicates a lot of acceleration from
rest and transient throttle which becomes more in proportion with the weight shifted than the engine doing the work..

More open running in 60-80 kph zones would have given more meaningful data...

this is a more valid test then the european cycle you mention, its a real world australian driving test. the falcon 15.4 L in the city they got is a true representation of the car, and why less and less people are buying it. interesting the ecoboost was only 6% better... if that ends up being the case in the falcon, then the ecoboost is a waste of money for ford. a 500nm 3L v6 turbo diesel would produce way better economy figures.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by kpcart

this is a more valid test then the european cycle you mention, its a real world australian driving test. the falcon 15.4 L in the city they got is a true representation of the car, and why less and less people are buying it. interesting the ecoboost was only 6% better... if that ends up being the case in the falcon, then the ecoboost is a waste of money for ford. a 500nm 3L v6 turbo diesel would produce way better economy figures.

yes, you have a valid point that perhaps the figures they obtained are more intune with the average leadfooted motorist in city conditions.

However, consumption in city traffic can vary a lot, depending who is at the wheel and Im guessing that they didnt even get the same person to drive the vehicles in question for their test, nullifying any real conclusions. They could have of course set up their own urban cycle on a racetrack and subjected both vehicles to the same stops, accelerations etc.....and have been able to make a real conclusion, but they didnt!


Also as I mentioned previously, their failure to actually measure the consumption of the mondeo at normal weight didnt allow them to see whether the extra weight actually made much difference to its consumption.

Sadly what we get here is typical of motoring journalism in both car magazines and the press, but really no different to other areas of journalism where articles are written with the journalist really not having the necessary knowledge and background, whether it be science or even economics.

Not all motoring journalism falls under this banner, the RACV magazine test reports for example are actually done by mechanical engineers, however, for other publications limit the useful info to the number of cup holders etc.

[Falc'man]

Someone left the cage open.

[Dr Smith]

The article also forget to factor in peak vs off peak cbd grind...a Falcon in off peak traffic will be far more ecomical then a peak time test....

on a side note our G6ET does exactly the same driving style as the cbd part of this story and gets 15-16L/100km @20-22km/hr, considering 38% more power for a small increase in fuel use, and my wife has no idea about an economic driving style..

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by Bobman

Yes it will. I'd be very happy to see the petrol version dropped as long as the EcoLPi model sticks around.

Who would want to own a petrol version these days anyway?

They wont have enough volume to continue producing an EcoPLI I6 without the petrol I6. They probably dont have enough volume now, but it costs less to keep the factory running at a loss for the next 4-5 years than to shut it down. A OneFord Falcon is either going to be sharing the Mustangs front module or CD4 anyway.

[thedutchman92]

Its possible that the falcon version will have closer to 200kw and 400nm coming from a 2.0L twin turbo 4 unlike the mondeo's single turbo application, yet to be seen though. How strange would it be if there were effectively 2 versions of the XR6 Turbo

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Bobman

Yes it will. I'd be very happy to see the petrol version dropped as long as the EcoLPi model sticks around.

Who would want to own a petrol version these days anyway?

People who need more boot space, people who go to areas that don't have high access to LPG, people who want a manual, people who live in places were LPG is quite expensive and the cost save isn't there, people who want a turbo, people who want a V8.

[thedutchman92]

Originally Posted by vztrt

People who need more boot space, people who go to areas that don't have high access to LPG, people who want a manual, people who live in places were LPG is quite expensive and the cost save isn't there, people who want a turbo, people who want a V8.

Agree with most of those points, plus LPG will loose it's pricepoint advantage in less than 2 years when the government starts slapping exise tax (like ULP) on it pushing prices close to if not level with ULP

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by thedutchman92

Agree with most of those points, plus LPG will loose it's pricepoint advantage in less than 2 years when the government starts slapping exise tax (like ULP) on it pushing prices close to if not level with ULP

Even with the excise it won't get close the ULP. 12.5c in the next 5 years won't cause an increase that will be that bad.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by kpcart

this is a more valid test then the european cycle you mention, its a real world australian driving test. the falcon 15.4 L in the city they got is a true representation of the car, and why less and less people are buying it. interesting the ecoboost was only 6% better... if that ends up being the case in the falcon, then the ecoboost is a waste of money for ford. a 500nm 3L v6 turbo diesel would produce way better economy figures.

At least the ECE test cycles compare apples with apples by using a set course
and specific acceleration/deceleration coast cycles, the test you are supporting
is full of compounded errors that creep in in a "real world" test.

Anyway, we will have our answer soon enough, 6 to 8 months is not long in the car business.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Bobman

Yes it will. I'd be very happy to see the petrol version dropped as long as the EcoLPi model sticks around.

Who would want to own a petrol version these days anyway?

Petrol I6 still makes up the bulk of 6 cylinder sales, around 80%. They would delete turbo and LPi before petrol versions. But they need all of them to keep the volumes up they need.

Originally Posted by thedutchman92

Its possible that the falcon version will have closer to 200kw and 400nm coming from a 2.0L twin turbo 4 unlike the mondeo's single turbo application, yet to be seen though. How strange would it be if there were effectively 2 versions of the XR6 Turbo

Wouldn't an XR version of the Ecoboost Falcon be an XR4, as the 6 in XR6 means 6 cylinders, 8 in XR8 etc.

Ecoboost 4 is single turbo too isn't it.

[jpd80]

Ford is counting on EcoLPI big time to raise sales of Falcon, that's why Ford has delayed the decision on
the next gen Falcon until next year, they are watching to see what happens with this version in the market place.
To a lesser extent, what Ecoboost does or does not do.....