Fg Mk2 Online

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by csv8

If those prices are correct..Ford has killed the Falcon..$48100for an XT !! Holden must be laughing and ramping up Omega production. I hope those prices are a massive typo...

Probably not...back in March when we bought the G6E the salesman said, when we asked about a "basic" Falcon (before finding out e great trade in deal we got on the G6E) that "no one buys a standard Falcon...you'll end up paying over forty grand."

I think they rely on just selling bulk amounts of mainly XR6's sitting on the lot...if you sit down and order something bespoke in a particular colour and trim, you'll pay through the nose...I think they're trying to actively discourage people from doing that nowadays.

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I think they rely on just selling bulk amounts of mainly XR6's sitting on the lot...if you sit down and order something bespoke in a particular colour and trim, you'll pay through the nose...I think they're trying to actively discourage people from doing that nowadays.

100% correct... Reason being they got caught out with too much old unwanted stock laying around the place back in the early BA days, and silly dealers who ordered it whinging because it wouldn't sell (well if you order a car in a **** colour with overpriced options ofcourse its not going to sell... Just like the dealers who order GT-P's without no cost option stripes, they are easier to remove then fit later!!). The option list is getting smaller and smaller everytime they bring out a new model and its no suprise really, the days of ordering your new car with 10 options are over.

The only day id buy an XT would be if I was a country rep and needed 16 inch wheels, they are just too bland and boring inside...

[Gothefalcon]

Originally Posted by dimka100

Well to make more power the engine needs to burn more fuel …

When looking at the same engine, and assuming the engine in the same efficiency band (i.e. you are not trying to make too little power or too much power) a lower power out figure will be more economical than a higher power output figure … that is because more power requires more air, and more air requires more fuel to burn to maintain the same air/fuel mixture …

OK... These are not the "same" engine... but compare an old Falcon 4.1 with early EB2 4.0 and up to todays FG 4.0.... The specific power and torque gains have increased dramatically over the past 30 years... and yet despite this and a fair weight disadvantage, as newer cars get heftier... the fuel economy of the FG is signifcantly better ! Even when restricting the comparison to, say BA 4.0 to FG 4.0... the fairly significant power & torque gains in recent years have not been reflected in overall fuel consumption increases. My point here.... is that technology can play a huge part in the over all efficiencies of the car. No doubt, improvements in the rest of the drivetrain have heped as well... but it's not just as simple as "more power = more fuel" ! Tell that to someone who drives an old Commy 5.0 V8 comparing to the latest LS version, for instance ! Quite often, an upgrade of an existing power plant will result in more power and reduced fuel consumption.... this is all down to finding greater efficiencies and, more often than not, this includes getting the engine to breath better ! More air + better combustion = more power & less fuel ! There will be a finite point at which an all new engine will need to be designed... but you would hope this has been done with the knowledge gained from improving the last one !!?? This is where Ecoboost comes from.... If the average cars power output is enough.... and improving it will only increase power and torque again... then why not reduce the capacity and apply the same improvements to it... thus resulting in a smaller, as powerful, yet lighter unit ! The weight saving alone will translate into better fuel economy ! & as more eficiencies are found within the new engine... further gains can be expected ! Give this example a bit of thought... The latest Corolla 4door sedan is longer and wider than an EH Holden.. it has roughly twice the power, and uses less fuel to make it ! OK.. you would expect that after all these years... but it has been small gains over a long time... it wont take that long to reproduce the same gains from now on. Like it or not... bigger motors to get more power is "old school" now !

[partsguy]

Have just seen Ford's official manufacturers list prices for FG2.
I can't disclose pricing at this point but there has been reductions across the whole range.

[russellw]

Originally Posted by phillyc

Ford needs to correct their serious disconnect with their Falcon pricing relative to list/rrp and the prices paid by the public.

It is a serious turn off for potential buyers who may see the adverts and think yeah, I'll go to the web and check them out. It also skews the resale value for Red Book etc.

Those prices should be
XT - $34,990
G6 - $36,990
G6E - $43,990
G6ET - $49,990
XR6 - $36,990
XR6T - $43,990

Add $2500 if you want EcoLPi

The pricing has been released in the thread HERE

For the lazy here is a summary (based on MLP)

XT - $37,235
G6 - $40,835
G6E - $46,735
G6ET - $56,235
XR6 - $39,990
XR6T - $46,2350

Cheers
Russ

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

You can tell how your post is irrelevant if you consider that the I6 in the FG is more economical than the previous iterations with less power.

Werent we talking about THE SAME ENGINE? albeit high and low power versions of it? In which case, any efficiency improvments you make on one should carry across to the other, so it is perfectly reasonable to conclude the higher power version will burn more fuel.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by b0son

Werent we talking about THE SAME ENGINE? albeit high and low power versions of it? In which case, any efficiency improvments you make on one should carry across to the other, so it is perfectly reasonable to conclude the higher power version will burn more fuel.

Yes, but how do you know it's the "same" Ecoboost? Like I said, read my other post for clarification on why there could be differences.

My example with the I6 is to demonstrate efficiency, and that more power doesn't always mean more fuel. So for the third time, read my other post regarding how they could get more out of it (Ecoboost) with better breathing. Better breathing helps VE.

[dimka100]

I think you are missing the point here … we are talking about the same engine (EcoboostI4T) available in various states of tune … one tune is aimed at less power but better efficiency, and another tune is aimed at more power with lesser fuel efficiency … no point trying to compare various generations of the Falcon engines as they are NOT the same engines …

The EcoboostI4T being discussed here is a global engine that is internally identical regardless of car model applied (currently available cars speaking), apart from the various external auxiliary items (exhaust, intake, coolers …) due to car variations, and various states of tune based on local fuel, environment, and performance targets …

If you want to get more power then you needs to sacrifice efficiency … and no a 3inch exhaust will not make more power while consuming less petrol in this case …

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Yes, but how do you know it's the "same" Ecoboost? Like I said, read my other post for clarification on why there could be differences.

My example with the I6 is to demonstrate efficiency, and that more power doesn't always mean more fuel. So for the third time, read my other post regarding how they could get more out of it (Ecoboost) with better breathing. Better breathing helps VE.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by dimka100

I think you are missing the point here … we are talking about the same engine (EcoboostI4T) available in various states of tune … one tune is aimed at less power but better efficiency, and another tune is aimed at more power with lesser fuel efficiency … no point trying to compare various generations of the Falcon engines as they are NOT the same engines …

The EcoboostI4T being discussed here is a global engine that is internally identical regardless of car model applied (currently available cars speaking), apart from the various external auxiliary items (exhaust, intake, coolers …) due to car variations, and various states of tune based on local fuel, environment, and performance targets …

If you want to get more power then you needs to sacrifice efficiency … and no a 3inch exhaust will not make more power while consuming less petrol in this case …

Judging by that post you have little idea how volumetric efficiency works. Now, until you work that out, or at the very least consider or concede that you have an issue with understanding something then there's no point in me trying to explain it.

APART from that, and something that I did mention earlier, is how do you know what the IDEAL state of tune is? No one knows better than what Ford have chosen. It could be less than 400, or over, but the whole point back then was the poster (redrum) gave us a hint but because you have little understanding of who's who on this forum you stuck your head out to argue about it, with stuff that proves you a) don't know how to read the context, and b) you have no idea what v.e. is.

[XRDeeze]

any pics of what the FPV looks like?

[CookieXt67]

Originally Posted by Ford_XR603

any pics of what the FPV looks like?

FPV hasn't released mk ll yet?..

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Gothefalcon

OK... These are not the "same" engine... but compare an old Falcon 4.1 with early EB2 4.0 and up to todays FG 4.0.... The specific power and torque gains have increased dramatically over the past 30 years... and yet despite this and a fair weight disadvantage, as newer cars get heftier... the fuel economy of the FG is signifcantly better ! Even when restricting the comparison to, say BA 4.0 to FG 4.0... the fairly significant power & torque gains in recent years have not been reflected in overall fuel consumption increases. My point here.... is that technology can play a huge part in the over all efficiencies of the car.

Exactly my earlier point, and my answer to "more power means more fuel" - which is correct when all things are equal - but there are at least a couple key points he's conveniently ignored.

- We don't know what the most efficient state of this motor is. I.e., he's assuming the tune in the FWD cars is the most efficient, but forget that these motors could be detuned - and therefore not running with the most optimum tune - so as not to put too much load on the FWD's weaker driveline. There's no way of knowing but it's very short sighted to assume since detuning to protect the driveline is common in the industry.

- Added to the above, the larger Falcon engine bay has scope for more efficient intake and exhaust.

This all started because a reliable source tells us it's 400Nm+. The attempt to disprove him has been amateurish so far to say the least. It's no longer about getting technical and analytical, it's about recognising which members here have access to info we plebs don't. This was pointed out earlier but like with everything else written, it was ignored.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by CookieXt67

FPV hasn't released mk ll yet?..

Correct, should be soon though. Give it a couple of weeks, if that, for the press release.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

- Added to the above, the larger Falcon engine bay has scope for more efficient intake and exhaust.

While this is certainly true, does Ford have the money to even go down this road? Or will it be treated as a crate motor (mostly)?

Either way, I'm not too fussed. One of my relatives got a Merc C250 (1.8L turbo, 1600kg+), and it is no slouch. I think people will be pleasantly surprised with a 'small' engine in a big car.

[Gothefalcon]

[QUOTE=dimka100]I think you are missing the point here … we are talking about the same engine (EcoboostI4T) available in various states of tune … one tune is aimed at less power but better efficiency, and another tune is aimed at more power with lesser fuel efficiency … no point trying to compare various generations of the Falcon engines as they are NOT the same engines …

Mate, You seem to undermine your own argument here... To get more power... or less power etc.. from the same engine... you must change something.
With my understanding of how You define "the same engine" is correct... then once you change something... it's not the same engine anymore !?!? Then you go on about different states of tune.... this is a change! What difference does it make if the change is a different state of tune... or a better designed inlet manifold/exhaust combination... a more intelligent computer, with the addition of a few extra sensors... or whatever it may be??? Once any change has been made... it means the new version of the same motor, is better in some way (you would hope) Ford HAVE done this with different versions of the same I6 motor... creating greater efficiencies, resulting in more power for less fuel ! Changing a state of tune in a new car... is virtually the same as bolting on a bigger carby, changing the cam, & chucking on a set of extractors, on and old car ! (an engine with a different carby, is still the same engine... just with a different carby!) Most new cars powerplants have variable cams, some sort of variable inlet tract, and sensors both before and after the combustion chamber to tell the computer if the engine is burning it's fuel efficiently ! If not... the computer will make a change to the setup) In an old car... the alterations mentioned above (done sensibly) would quite often result in more power for less fuel.... just as the state of tune in a new car (done correctly) can also generate the same result ! This is because the :state of tune" will vary the inlet tract, cams, timing, how long the injector opens for etc! In this light... if you consider an old powerplant, with a few external/internal changes... a different engine... then a modern variable engine, must also become a different engine, once you change the state of tune! You can't have it both ways !

I once owned an 86 XF 4.1ltr Falcon Wagon.... if I put 98ron in it... it would be more powerful... and I would get 60km further on the same tank! Do you consider this a different engine, just because I changed the fuel?

The point made earlier about Manufacturers detuning engines, is also correct... This way they can release a new model, with a better state of tune... and claim more power AND better economy! More often than not.. it is just the same engine (my definition) with a more efficient state of tune!

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by b0son

While this is certainly true, does Ford have the money to even go down this road? Or will it be treated as a crate motor (mostly)?

Either way, I'm not too fussed. One of my relatives got a Merc C250 (1.8L turbo, 1600kg+), and it is no slouch. I think people will be pleasantly surprised with a 'small' engine in a big car.

They don't have much choice in the matter, the exhaust and air intake from a focus is hardly going to match the difference size/shape of a Falcon engine bay and undertray.

[Brazen]

Its almost like Ford this afternoon have quoted directly from this very thread, where's my cheque Ford? haha.


http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2011...r-falcon-27549

It wasn't a question of introducing bright colours, larger-than-life graphics or go-fast bolt-ons. What the Falcon needs, according to Broadmeadows, is pricing that places it in the same target environment some of its competitors already occupy.

Long story short: the entire Falcon sedan model range — including the basic XT (pictured in MkII guise) — was priced above $40,000. Buyers searching online for an affordable new car for the family wouldn't find the Falcon unless they were prepared to pay above $40,000 — yet history shows that many Falcon buyers actually pay less than that sum.

"Falcon, the XT as a base model, has had an MLP above $40,000 only since July 1 last year — when we introduced Euro 4. That's when it sort of crossed that threshold. But that could be — in the customers's mind — a threshold they don't want to go over," Ford's Public Affairs Director, Sinead Phipps, explained to motoring.com.au this afternoon.

"So this is really about just making it a lot clearer, and it's also recognising that customers in the market to buy a car today aren't just comparing Falcon with its traditional competitors. They might be comparing it with SUVs or they might be comparing it with a smaller vehicle...

"We need to be competitive, not just in the large-car segment, but in the overall market..."

Where, in the past, Ford could rely on selling to fleets and educated private buyers who knew the only other game in town was Holden's Commodore, the market has changed — forever. Buyers who might be tempted by Falcon don't necessarily know it exists and don't stumble across it in cyberspace. If they do, it may not occur to them that the big Ford could be within their budget while they're looking up large family cars under $40,000. Inevitably, they will buy an SUV or a Camry... perhaps even a Mazda3.

The disconnect between advertised price in the company's official marketing material and the actual transaction price was becoming a secret known only to Falcon-buying cognoscenti.

"We have been advertising the manufacturer's list price for some time now," Phipps continued, "but [that] doesn't necessarily always equate to the real-world transaction price that customers are paying, so it can be confusing if someone's on our website doing a build and price. They get one [price] and then they go into a dealer and they get another. In some cases, the official price might stop them from going into a [dealership], because they think it might be too much, in comparison with what might be advertised by others.

"So we worked with the dealers and decided that we needed to make our list price more in line with the real transaction price that customers are currently paying."

Given the reduction in MLP (manufacturer's list price), some recent Falcon buyers could be forgiven for thinking that the resale value of their cars may suffer as a consequence, but in theory that shouldn't be the case, since the practical transaction price is unlikely to vary much between FG and FG MkII models.

According to Phipps, buyers are likely to understand that any new car will be an upgrade on the old one and depreciation is inevitable. It's the technology upgrade likely to have a greater impact on retained values than the pricing regime.

"Consumers in today's day and age are very used to always being upgraded," she said. "There's a lot of new technology going into this vehicle as well, so we think customers are used to that."

Coupled with a refreshed model delivering significantly improved equipment, the new pricing regime expands the Falcon's appeal into segments where it hasn't been before, as mentioned already. Ford has claimed in the past that large-car sales are being surrendered to small cars. This is a chance for the company to reacquire some of those lost customers.

"It's recognition that we need to be competitive with more than just our traditional vehicles that we compete against," Phipps concluded

[b0son]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

They don't have much choice in the matter

haha... i can imagine the reviews if the engine was fitted sans intake/exhaust :P

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by b0son

haha... i can imagine the reviews if the engine was fitted sans intake/exhaust :P

Nah, Imagine the reviews if they had the focus exhaust and intake hanging in the air and poking through the metal work if they didn't spend the money (like you suggested they wouldn't).

[b0son]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

like you suggested they wouldn't

what i meant was i dont see them pouring a lot of resources into optimising the setup.. probably just enough to pass emissions and noise, with performance probably a minor priority.

[jpd80]

"Falcon, the XT as a base model, has had an MLP above $40,000 only since July 1 last year — when we introduced Euro 4. That's when it sort of crossed that threshold. But that could be — in the customers's mind — a threshold they don't want to go over," Ford's Public Affairs Director, Sinead Phipps, explained to motoring.com.au this afternoon.

IMO, here's two important thresholds for Falcon based products:
1) $40,000 drive away - the bulk of Falcons sell under this price limit, maybe the 80 percentile mark?
2)$50,000 drive away - I estimate this to be the 90 percentile limit for Falcon products
Anyone above this limit is a serious buyer with more concerned with quality appointments than cost.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by jpd80

IMO, here's two important thresholds for Falcon based products:
1) $40,000 drive away - the bulk of Falcons sell under this price limit, maybe the 80 percentile mark?
2)$50,000 drive away - I estimate this to be the 90 percentile limit for Falcon products
Anyone above this limit is a serious buyer with more concerned with quality appointments than cost.

Its good to see Ford 'getting it' in regard to having the RRP more closely resemble real world transaction pricing. Good move and one which can only help sales.

[FreddyDUZ747]

With lower RRP prices does this mean the % drop of the value of the car will not be as large each year.Thats a little win in itself if so

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by FreddyDUZ747

With lower RRP prices does this mean the % drop of the value of the car will not be as large each year.Thats a little win in itself if so

It's more about Ford setting the undiscounted price of products to reflect the expectations of buyers.
Does this mean it will ultimately affect future discounted price or even residual values?
I seriously doubt either one of those factors will see significant change.

RRP really comes into play in the first golden 6 month of a mew model's release, after that time,
discounts begin to appear As buyers are encouraged back into the showroom.