Turbo 2.0L Falcon 147 Kw - 195Kw

[mickysacca]

big mistake IMHO

[tmac450]

It may be a good moove to appear green, more fuel efficient and to attract those fleet sales who want 4 cyl only, but in the real world, I very much doubt a 4 cyl in a heavy car will be any better on fuel than the 6.

While the official fuel economy figures (obtained thorugh light throtle, low rev applications), it is inescapable that the 4 will have to work much harder than the 6 in the real world.

A 4 cyl Camry has a lower consumption rating than the V6, however, in reality, many fleet owners report higher fuel useage in the 4. The 4s have to rev harder to accelerate, cruise at 100 and overtake. A few years ago I worked for a company and was switched from a V6 Camry to a 4 in the name of fuel cost cutting. All of us used more fuel in the 4s and the company decided to switch back to the V6s in the next upgrade.

The Falcon's higher weight will only exaserbate this problem. Especially when families try taking holidays with 5 ocupants and a boot full of luggage.

We most certainly need more fuel efficient cars, but as is a common theme with car companys today, it's a pretty half arsed attempt. How about making motors more fuel efficient, the cars lighter, etc. If Ford don't add direct injection to the 6 they're mental. Just dropping a small motor in a big car is not the answer, but it may just fool enough punters to work.

[tab]

...but it may just fool enough punters to work.

I.e. govt/fleet sales where it's a requirement. The fact that it makes no sense is irrelevant

[ubute]

LOL @ "government" and "making sense"... now there's an oxymoron

[nang3]

^^ no sh*t, just like 'road safety' and 'speed cameras' !!!

I guess one fact that is most important to me anyway is - Will the release of this 4cyl version have any impact on the performance or availablity of the turbo 6 and V8 model falcons??? if it does then it sucks, but if not then I couldnt care less.. if anything it might cause more falcon sales = theoretically cheaper cars and parts all round and less cost cutting mwahah.. as if fraud!

[bunna]

I think everyone is making the key mistake of thinking about traditional 4 cylinder engines in this application. The D40 is not a traditional 4 cylinder engine. It is turbocharged, and it has direct injection. This is no camry.

Ford's philosophy with the ecoboost range of engines is simple - utilise the best gasoline engine technologies available to give large engine performance with small engine fuel consumption. They've already done it with the V6 in the states, and the 4 is the next iteration.

Now this powertrain is by no means going to make a fast falcon, there'll be many other options in that regard, but not everyone is interested in doing 0-100 in 5 seconds all the time. Heck, I'd suggest a significant proportion of drivers out there wouldn't know if their car was a V6 or 4, FWD or RWD, etc. Why else would toyota sell TRD aurions

[tab]

Very true. I certainly hope they are on to a good thing, and fingers crossed they've got some money left over to actually do some decent marketing to make the most of it.

I think it's a fair reception on this place given the demographic, but like you hinted that probably only represents about 5%* of the population.

* figure plucked from arse....nil factual basis.

[Venom XR6]

It may be a good moove to appear green, more fuel efficient and to attract those fleet sales who want 4 cyl only, but in the real world, I very much doubt a 4 cyl in a heavy car will be any better on fuel than the 6.

While the official fuel economy figures (obtained thorugh light throtle, low rev applications), it is inescapable that the 4 will have to work much harder than the 6 in the real world.

A 4 cyl Camry has a lower consumption rating than the V6, however, in reality, many fleet owners report higher fuel useage in the 4. The 4s have to rev harder to accelerate, cruise at 100 and overtake. A few years ago I worked for a company and was switched from a V6 Camry to a 4 in the name of fuel cost cutting. All of us used more fuel in the 4s and the company decided to switch back to the V6s in the next upgrade.

The Falcon's higher weight will only exaserbate this problem. Especially when families try taking holidays with 5 ocupants and a boot full of luggage.

We most certainly need more fuel efficient cars, but as is a common theme with car companys today, it's a pretty half arsed attempt. How about making motors more fuel efficient, the cars lighter, etc. If Ford don't add direct injection to the 6 they're mental. Just dropping a small motor in a big car is not the answer, but it may just fool enough punters to work.

The EcoBoost 4 makes peak torque at 1500 rpm, around 1500 rpm lower than the I6, and torque will be around 320-350nm. Holdens new 3 litre V6 only makes 290nm. This 4 cylinder will have no problems moving 1600 kg. It may even be around 60-80 kg lighter than the I6 which will bring the weight down.

[ENVI.BA]

since its has a turbo.. I doubt it would be p plater legal. Unless they release a non turbo and give it less power than a '94 barina

[NB4C]

I think Ford will try to get it P plater exempt, it's a family car after all and is slower than N/A 6's. The smart car runs on a 1L turbo - that's exempt.