Why does the 2015/2016 Falcon need to have a V6? - Page 4

jpd80 · 02-09-2011, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Why is most so resistant to change? You think the worst before you have put your bum in the seat

Heritage.
The Inline six represents the defining link between XK and FG, once that goes everything the link is broken..
That's why you push it up hill trying to get Falcon fans to listen, you're "defiling" their favorite car...
The Falcon I-6 is sacred ground that must never ever change lest you release a pox on the world...

AMGC63 · 02-09-2011, 10:00 PM

Simple fact is an EB V6 Falcon would be a better handling, more powerful, and more tech savy car than we currently have.

Which means its much more marketable.

Its extremely ironical that the venerable and widely acomplished I6 engine, as good as its been will ultimaately be the main reason for the demise of the Falcon.. Sad isnt it.

jpd80 · 02-09-2011, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMGC63

Simple fact is an EB V6 Falcon would be a better handling more powerful car than we currently have.

Its extremely ironical that the venerable and widely acomplished I6 engine, as good as its been will ultimaately be the main reason for the demise of the Falcon.. Sad isnt it.

There is another being developed called "Nano" that involves a 2.5-2.7 V6 as NA and Ecoboost
specifically for Lincoln MKZ and MKX.... possibly high series Fusion (Mondeo)...

AMGC63 · 02-09-2011, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

Heritage.
The Inline six represents the defining link between XK and FG, once that goes everything the link is broken..
That's whay you push it up hill trying to get Falcon fans to listen, you're "defiling" their favorite car...
The Falcon I-6 is a sacred ground must never ever change lest you release a pox on the world...

Which means its doomed......

jpd80 · 02-09-2011, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMGC63

Which means its doomed......

Not for five years....
Hey don't get me wrong there is a chance:
FoA goes to the Aussie government and says, " How much do you want to keep the I-6 plant and jobs in Australia?
With your Assistance, we can upgrade our I-6 with DI and Ecoboost technology and meet Euro 6 for approx. $30 million.."

Land that one in an election year and see what happens....( I-6 can be built in any capacity from 2.4 to 4.0 litres, the park is wide open...)

My guess we will get a V6 but I am open to FoA putting a very stout case forward....

AMGC63 · 02-09-2011, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

Not for five years....
Hey don't get me wrong there is a chance:
FoA goes to the Aussie government and says, " How much do you want to keep the I-6 plant and jobs in Australia?
With your Assistance, we can upgrade our I-6 with DI and Ecoboost technology and meet Euro 6 for approx. $30 million.."

Land that one in an election year and see what happens....

Or.. fly your eggs to the wind and retool for the EB V6 range and try to export 20 times the local potential volume of engines internationally!!!

naddis01 · 02-09-2011, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

There is another being developed called "Nano" that involves a 2.5-2.7 V6 as NA and Ecoboost
specifically for Lincoln MKZ and MKX.... possibly high series Fusion (Mondeo)...

Would a 2.5-2.7L Ecoboost potentially be more fuel efficient and have similar/more power than a 3.5-3.7L N/A V6?

jpd80 · 02-09-2011, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naddis01

Would a 2.5-2.7L Ecoboost potentially be more fuel efficient and have similar/more power than a 3.5-3.7L N/A V6?

Approx 210 Kw and around 470 nm?
Probably pretty close to the just superseded 4.6 3V V8 but with awesome fuel economy...

Falc'man · 02-09-2011, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

There is another being developed called "Nano" that involves a 2.5-2.7 V6 as NA and Ecoboost
specifically for Lincoln MKZ and MKX.... possibly high series Fusion (Mondeo)...

Didn't they say that was in development specifically for trucks to meet the 2025 CAFE regs of 4.8l/100km? Nothing stopping them from using it in the passenger vehicles except that it may not be ready by 2016.

FPV GTHO · 03-09-2011, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

Not for five years....
Hey don't get me wrong there is a chance:
FoA goes to the Aussie government and says, " How much do you want to keep the I-6 plant and jobs in Australia?
With your Assistance, we can upgrade our I-6 with DI and Ecoboost technology and meet Euro 6 for approx. $30 million.."

Land that one in an election year and see what happens....( I-6 can be built in any capacity from 2.4 to 4.0 litres, the park is wide open...)

My guess we will get a V6 but I am open to FoA putting a very stout case forward....

But then how much extra do they need on the chassis side? You obviously cant just keep the I6 in the space otherwise developed for I4, V6 and V8 as it would be in Mustang for example. It would be some interesting sums for FoA to convince both the Oz Government for more grants, and Ford Global that a unique front end is necessary to the Mustang. Its not just engine development, but chassis development too that will require extra expenditure to keep the I6 around.

burnz · 03-09-2011, 01:22 AM

Quote:

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?

nt0351 · 03-09-2011, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Why is most so resistant to change? You think the worst before you have put your bum in the seat

i dont think its resistance to change at all ,..the Falcon has always been an IL6 ,..its part of the cars dna if you like ,.....I understand they need to roll with the times and keep up with lower emmission and higher efficiency requirements ,..and going by the current FG's lacklustre sales they probably feel they need a whiz bang V6 to compete in the large car space ,..the irony is the FG in its current configuration with the 6sp ZF is a great car and miles ahead of its 2 rivals ,
Imo if they are going to put a yank designed and produced V6 or diesel in it ,dont call it a Falcon

Paxton · 03-09-2011, 11:25 AM

I think the only reason why we're having a sook over the I6 going is (for me, anyway), the huge job losses associated with it. The I6 as it stands employs more than 1,000 people either directly or indirectly. Not a small number for something that is only used in one country, by two vehicles.

I'm a fan of some good V6 engines. Datsun make a good one, as did MMAL - their last 3.5 was a cracker. Let's not base our judgement on a V6 solely on the Buick disaster that Holden imported, originally with a sticker saying "Not for Longitudinal Applications" on the crate. The 3.7 hauled the Falcon (in 123 guise) pretty damn well from all accounts, and with some local tweaking, direct injection, forced induction, and a decent gearbox, we'll mourn the I6 for a while, life will go on, and we may still get a Locally Built, Locally Engineered, Rear Wheel Drive, Falcon Sized vehicle.

Commodore went on when they put the Datsun I6 in it (and then the Buick disaster), however Falcon can not live on unless it has a V6 in it. No ifs, no buts - if we want another Falcon after FG, it will have a V6 in it.

burnz · 03-09-2011, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paxton

I think the only reason why we're having a sook over the I6 going is (for me, anyway), the huge job losses associated with it. The I6 as it stands employs more than 1,000 people either directly or indirectly. Not a small number for something that is only used in one country, by two vehicles.I'm a fan of some good V6 engines. Datsun make a good one, as did MMAL - their last 3.5 was a cracker. Let's not base our judgement on a V6 solely on the Buick disaster that Holden imported, originally with a sticker saying "Not for Longitudinal Applications" on the crate. The 3.7 hauled the Falcon (in 123 guise) pretty damn well from all accounts, and with some local tweaking, direct injection, forced induction, and a decent gearbox, we'll mourn the I6 for a while, life will go on, and we may still get a Locally Built, Locally Engineered, Rear Wheel Drive, Falcon Sized vehicle.

Commodore went on when they put the Datsun I6 in it (and then the Buick disaster), however Falcon can not live on unless it has a V6 in it. No ifs, no buts - if we want another Falcon after FG, it will have a V6 in it.

thats the crux of it i think..
if they go similar to holden, bear block and heads..with local sourced internal, ancillary's.
may save a few jobs..

Bossxr8 · 03-09-2011, 09:38 PM

The Mustang spec 3.7 would be a good engine for Falcon, it will do the job nicely, but if they use it with FWD it will not be a Falcon but an abortion, which should not be associated with the Falcon name.

A RWD Falcon with Mustang V6 could still carry the Falcon badge IMO.

The scary thing is that a FWD Falcon could not have either an I6 or a V8, as they both are not suitable for FWD applications, both too big to fit. Coyote is for RWD north/south applications only, F series AWD excepted.

SteveJH · 03-09-2011, 09:48 PM

A North-South RWD/AWD falcon could be pretty cool.

It would still allow a V8 option while allowing AWD varients to be sold in areas where snow/ice is a problem.

Bossxr8 · 03-09-2011, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveJH

A North-South RWD/AWD falcon could be pretty cool.

It would still allow a V8 option while allowing AWD varients to be sold in areas where snow/ice is a problem.

But the Taurus and CD4 platforms only allow for east/west, so no go there.

How many areas of Australia have ice/snow problems? Populations in these areas is probably a few thousand.

FPV GTHO · 04-09-2011, 12:12 AM

Any AWD Falcon with a longitudinal mount engine/gearbox would surely have to have demand driven from Lincoln/Ford US as opposed to a local need.

cartaa100 · 04-09-2011, 12:17 AM

i love the I6 and will hate to see it go, i know itd cost alot but id love to see maybe a 3L or 3.5L I6 with direct injection! :P personally id love to just keep the 4L I6 in it but clearly because the falcon doesnt have amillion badges on it like the commodore its must be less hi-tech even though the I6 is 1 million times better it just doenst have the SIDI,AFM "so good on fuel badge" (when the sidi and afm barely help with fuel... but it sure cons people

FalconXV · 04-09-2011, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

There is another being developed called "Nano" that involves a 2.5-2.7 V6 as NA and Ecoboost
specifically for Lincoln MKZ and MKX.... possibly high series Fusion (Mondeo)...

Is there any information on this engine, or an ETA? Could be a sweet little unit, and just the thing to battle the VF Holden- Dearborn does the development work and then they have something competitive to put in Falcon!

Also why don't they just get the conrods from the EA 3.2? That would be a cheap solution LOL.

Road_Warrior · 04-09-2011, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMGC63

Or.. fly your eggs to the wind and retool for the EB V6 range and try to export 20 times the local potential volume of engines internationally!!!

No point considering the US plant has a capacity of up to 1 million units per annum - the Geelong engine plant simply would not be able to compete on economies of scale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by burnz

3.45 in manuel!!

You leave my brother out of this.

naddis01 · 04-09-2011, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

Approx 210 Kw and around 470 nm?
Probably pretty close to the just superseded 4.6 3V V8 but with awesome fuel economy...

Now those figures would make for a good replacement for the I6.

mik · 04-09-2011, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMGC63

Some just wont accept it, for some people the place the pistons are put is the be all. V engines are more space efficient and compact, they offer much more versitility then straight line engines, and better induction setups, especially for blowers.

yeah but an inline 6 is perfect to hang a turbo off.

SteveJH · 04-09-2011, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

But the Taurus and CD4 platforms only allow for east/west, so no go there.

How many areas of Australia have ice/snow problems? Populations in these areas is probably a few thousand.

Even if only the RWD varient was sold in Australia, any platform developed would definately have utilisation possibilities overseas, especially at premium levels as a possible Audi/BMW competitor.

jpd80 · 04-09-2011, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FalconXV

Is there any information on this engine, or an ETA? Could be a sweet little unit, and just the thing to battle the VF Holden- Dearborn does the development work and then they have something competitive to put in Falcon!

Also why don't they just get the conrods from the EA 3.2? That would be a cheap solution LOL.

The word is that part of the redesign of Mondeo for US Fusion/Lincoln MKZ involves the 2.5-2.7 V6, there's a
perception that Lincoln customers expect a V6 as a minimum to achieve high levels NVH control and smoothness.
If that's the case then it should be out with the 2013 version MKZ due out early next year....

No word on other applications but you can bet that a 2.7 Ecoboost that makes 240 KW and 480 nm
would make an excellent diesel alternative in F150, something Ford NA is keen to exploit....

If Ford does a RWD version then that will be another potential engine that Ford Australia has access to.

Franco Cozzo · 04-09-2011, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mik

yeah but an inline 6 is perfect to hang a turbo off.

Have a look at where the turbo is located on the latest Mercedes Sprinter V6s, its between the rocker covers at the top of the engine.

Hell, I6 is perfect for a turbo, V6 would be perfect for a PD supercharger

fou_bleu · 05-09-2011, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Have a look at where the turbo is located on the latest Mercedes Sprinter V6s, its between the rocker covers at the top of the engine.

Hell, I6 is perfect for a turbo, V6 would be perfect for a PD supercharger

Although EcoBoost almost crosses out this possibility, wouldn't a supercharged V6 take care of that lack of low end torque some are complaining about?

Turbo's have to spool up (admittedly the FGs' takes very little time as it is), whereas superchargers run on engine RPM - eliminating lag...

Still, the Nano EcoBoost V6 would be a nice replacement for the XR6 Turbo - yes it has less power and torque, but how much lighter will it be? Also, the added efficiency and lack of 6-cylinder competition add to the case...

Falc'man · 05-09-2011, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4RD4TW

Although EcoBoost almost crosses out this possibility, wouldn't a supercharged V6 take care of that lack of low end torque some are complaining about?

Turbo's have to spool up (admittedly the FGs' takes very little time as it is), whereas superchargers run on engine RPM - eliminating lag...

Still, the Nano EcoBoost V6 would be a nice replacement for the XR6 Turbo - yes it has less power and torque, but how much lighter will it be? Also, the added efficiency and lack of 6-cylinder competition add to the case...

I think there's next to no lag in the ecoboost motors, they should have very quick spool.

Bossxr8 · 05-09-2011, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Have a look at where the turbo is located on the latest Mercedes Sprinter V6s, its between the rocker covers at the top of the engine.

Same as the new M5 and X5M/X6M.

thedutchman92 · 07-09-2011, 09:55 AM

Quote:

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..

What are you talking about? Tell me one user who doesn't frequently give it a squirt to rev cut to achieve max power @ 5250 ish rpm and in terms of torque it would be a challenge not to hit peak output during everyday driving.