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

[jpd80]

Greenvehicleguide has the figures up and they are impressive- LINK

Ecoboost gives fuel economy figures similar to Diesel Territory

Ecoboost Falcon:
Combined - 8.1 l/100km
Urban - 11.8 l/100 km
Extra Urban - 6.0 l/100 km

Compared to 4.0 XT:
Combined - 9.9 l/100km
Urban - 14.6 l/100 km
Extra Urban - 7.2 l/100 km

3.0 SIDI Omega:
Combined - 8.9 l/100km
Urban - 12.3 l/100 km
Extra Urban - 6.9 l/100 km

[falconnut]

Wow thats pretty good for a Turbo 4

[Franco Cozzo]

People are complaining about 4 cylinder engines, but I believe we've got ourselves the next SR20 on our hands.

Remember, it uses forced induction, so I'm betting it will take well to a turbo back exhaust with a high flow cat and a tune.

Its also lighter, so better handling.

[Brazen]

In the Green Vehicle Guide it says 91RON.

[Road_Warrior]

It also says 6.0L/100klm on the highway

[Nikked]

Eco Boost into a EA falcon? Hell yeah!

FPV should do a version...

EcoBossT

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Brazen

In the Green Vehicle Guide it says 91RON.

Hmm, I wonder what the fuel mapping does with 95 or 98 ULP....

This ain't no weakling, if anything it will beat up on the 3.0 SIDI, 0-100 kph is gonna be fun..

The I-6 fans will still prefer the 4.0, that's OK but I think everyone deserves to try this engine out
so they can appreciate the effort that's gone into getting good economy and acceptable performance.

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

It also says 6.0L/100klm on the highway

1100 km's to a tank... Brisbane to Sydney... They can forget Holden's Sydney to Melbourne triumph.

[2011G6E]

I think they're going to sell an awful lot of these things, if they market them right and actually use a bit of what's commonly known as "advertising"...I know it's a radical idea to link the word "advertising" with the word "Falcon", but you never know.

I still maintain they should have a TV advert and show something small...maybe like a Toyota Corolla, with the fuel economy figures and, if they must though it's irrelevant to nearly everyone, 0-100kph times, as well as registration costs (in Queensland anyway that's a big difference...I only just paid both our car regos...$802 for our G6E as compared to $630 for our Celica) and then have a new Ecoboost Falcon drive up and park beside it and list the fuel economy and running costs, making it abundantly clear that you can have a much larger car for the same rego cost, Australian built, and as the market moves towards more efficiencies, you don't have to compromise on safety or size to get cheaper to run a car anymore...

[Road_Warrior]

How about a 1000klm economy challenge? SHIDDY 3.0 Commodore v Ecoboost Falcon v Corolla v Mazda 3...

[mrghia]

so are they still gonna call it a G6/G6E or G4/G4E?

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

How about a 1000klm economy challenge? SHIDDY 3.0 Commodore v Ecoboost Falcon v Corolla v Mazda 3...

Problem there is you're not comparing apples with apples, you've got Commodore, which is right, but Corolla and Mazda 3 are small cars, not large sedans.

[DFB FGXR6]

Our Mondeo with the (detuned) EB4 also needs 95ron. The manual states "your mondeo has been optimised for operation on premium unleaded fuel (95ron or higher). It is also safe to operate the engine on standard unleaded fuel (91ron min), however if you choose to do so, you may notice some minor loss of performance, ecomomy and increased engine noise".

So EB4 Falcon will run on regular, but the published figures are derived from 95ron. Much the same as published power figures for the GT's supercharged V8 as quoted from premium unleaded.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Problem there is you're not comparing apples with apples, you've got Commodore, which is right, but Corolla and Mazda 3 are small cars, not large sedans.

But people are cross shopping everything with everything these days, look at the Mazda 3, best selling car in Australia in 2011, a title the Falcon once held.

Even perennial Falcon haters Drive have said in their headline: "Four-cylinder Falcon uses less fuel than Mazda3" - that's gold right there.

[vztrt]

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...201-1qsne.html

Four-cylinder Falcon uses less fuel than Mazda3
Joshua Dowling
February 1, 2012 - 4:58PM

It's official: large cars can now have small-car economy.

Judgment day for the Ford Falcon has arrived.

Ford has removed fuel consumption from the debate about large cars by fitting its big sedan with a four-cylinder engine that delivers small-car economy.

In a move seen as a last roll of the dice for Ford Australia's factory operations, the four-cylinder Falcon has a fuel economy rating of 8.1L/100km, according to official figures released today.
Advertisement: Story continues below

In its standard form, the Mazda3 small car - Australia's top-selling vehicle last year - consumes 8.2L/100km with automatic transmission, according to Federal Government rating label figures.

If Falcon sales aren't revived by this latest taxpayer-funded hi-tech change then it will indicate there may be other reasons for the home-grown sedan's dramatic drop in popularity - and that the poor perception of the vehicle may have been much worse than the economic reality.

Ford has already discovered Falcon sales haven't been revived by low running costs and a new, super-efficient LPG system, which means the vehicle's options for its future are running out.

Ford Australia recently announced an investment of $103 million (using $34 million from the Federal Government and an estimated $19 million from the Victorian Government) to keep the Falcon in production until 2016.

As reported last year by Drive, the four-cylinder Falcon will cost the same price as the six-cylinder models that will continue to sell alongside it.

The retail cost for a four-cylinder Falcon starts from $37,235, although private and fleet buyers routinely pay heavily discounted prices.

Earlier reports claimed that Ford was considering a price premium for the four-cylinder Falcon but research showed Australian car buyers weren't prepared to pay a premium for the same car with a smaller engine.

The similarly-sized Ford Mondeo with the same engine as the four-cylinder Falcon costs $37,740.

The four-cylinder Falcon uses 18 per cent less fuel than the six-cylinder Falcon and 9 per cent less than the six-cylinder Commodore.

However, the four-cylinder Falcon is not as frugal as the new Toyota Camry, which has a consumption of 7.9L/100km.

And more luxurious models in the four-cylinder Falcon range - the G6 and G6E - consume 8.5L/100km compared to 8.9L/100km for the equivalent Berlina V6 and 9.8L/100km for the Calais V6.

[Polyal]

So the real question will be how does the EB4 Falcon sell vs the Mondeo EB4...that will be interesting to watch and settle FWD vs RWD for most "normal" people.

[Cobramad]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

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.

I disagree that the time wasn't right for a 4cyl large car, its just that the engine was a total piece of junk, thirsty, coarse and underpowered. Noted motoring journalist, the late Peter Wherret went to the trouble of transplanting the Mitsubish 2.6 4cylinder and 5speed 'box into the Commodore. It was called the "Comma", referring to the pause one would make before continuing. It went as hard as the Holden 6cyl and still used less fuel. There was no way in the world that Mitsubishi, who at the time were selling the most popular mid-sized car in the country, would ever have let anyone else have that engine/trans combo. That experiment made serious food for thought.
EB4 allows Ford to broaden its appeal to potential purchasers, which it desperately needs at present. Im hanging out to drive it and see for myself how well it stacks up as an alternative to the I6. It could be a winner..

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

But people are cross shopping everything with everything these days, look at the Mazda 3, best selling car in Australia in 2011, a title the Falcon once held.

Even perennial Falcon haters Drive have said in their headline: "Four-cylinder Falcon uses less fuel than Mazda3" - that's gold right there.

Different price ranges too though, unless you where looking at an MPS3.

But I can see where you are coming from.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

Our Mondeo with the (detuned) EB4 also needs 95ron. The manual states "your mondeo has been optimised for operation on premium unleaded fuel (95ron or higher). It is also safe to operate the engine on standard unleaded fuel (91ron min), however if you choose to do so, you may notice some minor loss of performance, ecomomy and increased engine noise".

So EB4 Falcon will run on regular, but the published figures are derived from 95ron. Much the same as published power figures for the GT's supercharged V8 as quoted from premium unleaded.

Perhaps the fact that the Mondeo runs lower power allows it to run on lower RON. Would be interesting to see if the same line appears in the Falcon manual.

Originally Posted by svo347

I'm sorry but I must have had my head in the sand... Performance?? I just can't see it

It's a tough balancing act. I think anything smaller (in capacity and output) and people will balk at the figures and assume it's a slug. Go bigger, say to a 2.3l engine and the figures can match or surpass the current I6. Only problem with that is the consumption will then go up to something close to the SIDI so they will have less of an edge.

I don't mind those figures... If I was looking for a full size sedan the EB and the LPI Falcons will be at the top of the list.

[Luke Plaizier]

Originally Posted by mrghia

so are they still gonna call it a G6/G6E or G4/G4E?

That is a frikken FANTASTIC question!


Lukeyson

[mik]

if it makes similar power and torque(which comes in a little earlier) to the intech 6 and has the 6 speed auto, it should go alright i would think, any idea`s what diff ratio the ecoboost falcon is running?
here`s a thought.......... falcon eco boost vs falcon eco lpi long distance test, that would be a gooden.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Polyal

So the real question will be how does the EB4 Falcon sell vs the Mondeo EB4...that will be interesting to watch and settle FWD vs RWD for most "normal" people.

basically, it will come down to loyalty to the badge...

Some mondeo (or medium car) buyers might be swayed, really, there is not a lot of differences besides drive configuration and features list...

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by mrghia

so are they still gonna call it a G6/G6E or G4/G4E?

It stays g6 and g6e.

The great thing about it is that is makes more torque than the Commodore 3.0 AND 3.6, and the Aurion 3.5. And torque peaks at 2000 RPM.

3.6 makes 350nm, Ecoboost makes 353nm.

So much for highly strung and needs to be revved hard to get going. People who say that have no clue whatsoever.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

So much for highly strung and needs to be revved hard to get going. People who say that have no clue whatsoever.

but the engine is going to be worked hard all the time to work the same as the I6, it won't be reliable, remeber the starfire!

[jpd80]

Poor old Holden has a much bigger problems at the moment, they have to right size production to sales...

Good on Ford, following USA's lead by giving good performance while optimising on 91.
Strangely, I think that figure on regular petrol is going to shake up a few brands that need 95..

[GTP-03]

its not a starfire, that was a 1.9 opel engine made in the 80s. Ecoboost is a direct injection turbo charged state of the art engine which is already used in europe. Man some people are just plain dumb

[RASER]

Sorry, i am not falling for it and dont like it

Falcon does not need a another petrol donk.

What they should have done is fit the Terri TDI diesel into the Falcon, that would sell and 1200km range, country buyers would love it.

And they have made the IL6 look poor/odd against this new donk, if the gave the IL6 a fighting chance, and REALLY invested in it, ie direct injection, displacement on demand, high compression, stop/start technology, weight loss, it would kick the ECOBUST a/ss from here to kingdom come and back i think the ECO nonsense has been pushed into the Falcon by HQ in USA

My 2 cents worth!

[RASER]

[quote=jpd80]Poor old Holden has a much bigger problems at the moment, they have to right size production to sales...
quote]

How so?

The Commodore was sales leader for 15 years straight and will most likely still be in the top 5 for years and years to come.

Its actually the Falcon that has become desperate, fell out of the top 10

No Fairlane, LTD, RTV, Wagon, PanelVan, Coupe, XR8....WTF are they doing up at IvoryTower HQ in Broady??

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by RASER

Sorry, i am not falling for it and dont like it

Falcon does not need a another petrol donk.

What they should have done is fit the Terri TDI diesel into the Falcon, that would sell and 1200km range, country buyers would love it.

And they have made the IL6 look poor/odd against this new donk, if the gave the IL6 a fighting chance, and REALLY invested in it, ie direct injection, displacement on demand, high compression, stop/start technology, weight loss, it would kick the ECOBUST a/ss from here to kingdom come and back i think the ECO nonsense has been pushed into the Falcon by HQ in USA

My 2 cents worth!

Its part of fords global plan, one that could save the falcon...

A I6 no matter what tech, wont attract 4cyl buyers...

[Nikked]

[QUOTE=RASER]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Poor old Holden has a much bigger problems at the moment, they have to right size production to sales...
quote]

How so?

The Commodore was sales leader for 15 years straight and will most likely still be in the top 5 for years and years to come.

Its actually the Falcon that has become desperate, fell out of the top 10

No Fairlane, LTD, RTV, Wagon, PanelVan, Coupe, XR8....WTF are they doing up at IvoryTower HQ in Broady??

Lol, panelvan, coupe...

Fairlane selling 5 cars a month...