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

[SlowF6]

Nice read this thread has been! Just doing some browsing and comparing between the 3.5L EB and our current competitor from Ford Australia:

3.5L Ecoboost V6 in the Taurus SHO
272KW at 5500rpm and 475NM of torque at 1500-5250rpm

4.0L Turbocharged I6 in the FG XR6/G6E Turbo
270KW at 5250rpm and 533NM (586NM with overboost) of torque from 1950rpm

The Ecoboost does seem to pack a bit of punch and acceleration times as well as 1/4 mile times are very similar between the two I believe. I really love our brilliant straight 6 engines and they have been reliably serving our family for many many years. Only time will tell I guess, will be very interesting to see the final outcome. Some cool videos on youtube about Ecoboost like the endurance tests presented by Mike Rowe and about the Taurus SHO

Also I forgot to ask, is there a general reason why inline engine seem to have more torque than similar V config engines? Wasn't able to find much on google

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Lak87 G6ET

Nice read this thread has been! Just doing some browsing and comparing between the 3.5L EB and our current competitor from Ford Australia:

3.5L Ecoboost V6 in the Taurus SHO
272KW at 5500rpm and 475NM of torque at 1500-5250rpm

4.0L Turbocharged I6 in the FG XR6/G6E Turbo
270KW at 5250rpm and 533NM (586NM with overboost) of torque from 1950rpm

The Ecoboost does seem to pack a bit of punch and acceleration times as well as 1/4 mile times are very similar between the two I believe. I really love our brilliant straight 6 engines and they have been reliably serving our family for many many years. Only time will tell I guess, will be very interesting to see the final outcome. Some cool videos on youtube about Ecoboost like the endurance tests presented by Mike Rowe and about the Taurus SHO

Also I forgot to ask, is there a general reason why inline engine seem to have more torque than similar V config engines? Wasn't able to find much on google

bore x stroke is how the KW verses NM..
allso one is a 3.5 verses 4.0..

[gunny]

The amount of kilowatts in any future Ford Australia family size sedan is almost irrelevant. The figures quoted may be nice and exciting but rarely if ever can this type of performance be used legally or not on any Australian road.

I drive both Statesmans and the last of the Fairlane regularly and there is very little difference between them for performance.

Front wheel drive cars are made expressly for profit by manufacturers they are more complicated and crowded into tight engine bays. All equates to greater running and maintenance costs which suits the manufacturers just fine. Have a front end accident with a front wheel drive and see how much it will cost to repair if it is not written of.

I have a great dislike for front wheel drive cars ( I have driven many over the years for work) and will be very dissapointed if Ford kills of the RWD Falcon.

If Ford do go down the road with a Taurus or similar then that will kill of manufacturing of any Ford in Australia. The figures speak for themselves. What Ford Australia makes in one year of all vehicles, Ford America can make in a couple of days.

Why keep manufacturing in Australia when they can, if ever so slightly increase their own produciton and work for Americans.

As for the techincal qualities of the various engines excluding the eco boost, our I6 has the same qualities as many of the best engines in the world. Twin cams, elctronic this and that, modern materials and proudly Australian.

My BA I6 would blow my old XB 351 GT into the weeds in overall performance and probably close in a straight line.

If they do go Taurus and all wheel drive, consider this in the current debate etc on global warming. It means more materials and eneregy to produce the extra components to make a four wheel drive when except for the most extrordinary circumstances, almost never eoncouterd by the average road user, a two wheel drive and preferably a rear wheel drive is all we need.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

A) F6 drinks like a V8 (I know I own an XR6T), but an Ecoboost V6 will drink like a V6 & get the same torque & power as an I6T!!
B) A patent is only taken out when something new in engineered & invented. A patent stops others from coping it.. People only want to copy something that is good!!
C) You may be right in saying a V6 can never match an I6 with all things being equal. Personally I have not idea about that.. However, the current I6 does not have all the newest tech that current V6’s have… And getting the I6 there will cost too much & will never happen.

A) How does a V6 drink?
C) What tech is missing from the current I6?

[EFFalcon]

I can't beleive the layout/configuration of an engine had so many people so close to jumping off the rails.

[Rodge]

^^ The reason being I think is that so many people have had a good solid run from their inline six, there's no question they make heaps of really useful low end torque and are a pleasure to drive. Jump in a Holden 3.6 sidi and out into a FG XR6 and no wonder people are worried about a change in configuration. There's also the considerable extra weight and inefficiency of the AWD so called "SHO" Taurus that's got any turbo enthusiast wistfully hoping their RWD F6 making 565nm at only 1950 revs stays in production forever. Its a good donk, who could blame them ?

[EFFalcon]

yet so willing to praise the idea of a Diesel/I4T

[MAD]

From an engineering perspective, the I6 configuration is just brilliant. If Ford want to lower the bonnet height, make it a slant 6. Doesnt help witht he FWD application, but then the best thing to do there is not make a FWD application!

They dont have to be low revving high torque engines either, that's just the Ford 4.0l.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by EFFalcon

yet so willing to praise the idea of a Diesel/I4T

Lots of people chasing a little bit of extra efficiency will be disappointed IMO with either option compared to the extremly torquey Inline 6 especially taking into account its simple maintenance requirements.

[SpoolMan]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Jump in a Holden 3.6 sidi and out into a FG XR6 and no wonder people are worried about a change in configuration.

Agreed, I had to do this myself was given a SV6 by Hertz in Sydney, the pull or the lack of it compared to the Ford straight 6 is really noticeable..

[fou_bleu]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Jump in a Holden 3.6 sidi and out into a FG XR6 and no wonder people are worried about a change in configuration.

Oh, so if/when we get a V6 we'd be getting a GM engine would we?

Honestly, you naysayers would complain with 227kW (@ 6500rpm) & 380Nm (@ 4250rpm) from the 3.7 Duratec compared to the 195kW (@ 6000rpm) & 391Nm (@ 3250rpm) of the Barra 195? (Numbers based on Ford figures for Mustang V6 & Falcon XT quoted on their respective websites.)

Something to take into consideration is the weight of the actual engines. For the life of me I can't find specific weights, so if anyone could help out in those regards, it would be very helpful.

Oh, and what about transmission? Calibration and ratios etc. counts here IMO and without a common transmission (yet), we can't really comment, can we.

Also, by the time Ford is selling the next iteration of a large sedan here in Australia (name, drivetrain and origin of manufacture irrelevant), who's to say there is no all-new V6? Back to square one.

[Rodge]

I believe its the effortless way in which the inline six goes about its work that's made it such an iconic engine, max torque at very modest and useable revs and of course its longevity and its what people know and trust.

Its only natural people are reluctant to change when they've come to trust and like what they have had for so long. Still as you say, 2016 is a long way off and gives everyone the opportunity to plan to buy one of the last inline sixes if that's the way it pans out, speaking of which, I recently met Paul Cook senior engineer and head of product development at FPV and amoung other things I suggested they'd had the number 310 on the back of an F6 for quite a while and asked him if he was working on any plans for a hotter F6, with a broad smile he said, "we're always working hard"

It wasn't what he said as obviously he wouldn't give anything away, but the way he said it....

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by gunny

As for the techincal qualities of the various engines excluding the eco boost, our I6 has the same qualities as many of the best engines in the world. Twin cams, elctronic this and that, modern materials and proudly Australian.

No Alloy block and no direct injection for starters.

[EFFalcon]

eh, a lot of falcon owners wouldn't care what engines in it.
hence why they're going elsewhere.

if they're not loyal to the car, what makes you think they care or even understand the difference between an I6 ot V6.

[MAD]

I've seen a BA futura with V6 badges on the front guards.
I've heard plenty of people refer to the Ford engine as a V6.

Ford shouldnt change just because they can though. I'd prefer them to be aiming for the highest possible standards, not just making something that 'will do' just because the public wouldnt know squat about it.

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by Lak87 G6ET

Nice read this thread has been! Just doing some browsing and comparing between the 3.5L EB and our current competitor from Ford Australia:

3.5L Ecoboost V6 in the Taurus SHO
272KW at 5500rpm and 475NM of torque at 1500-5250rpm

4.0L Turbocharged I6 in the FG XR6/G6E Turbo
270KW at 5250rpm and 533NM (586NM with overboost) of torque from 1950rpm

Before judging Ecoboost V6 too strongly, remember that its more powerful in F150 than it is in Taurus, and likely would have the F150's figures (if not higher) if it went into Mustang and Falcon. The east/west transmissions cant handle the same torque as longitudinal transmissions.

Originally Posted by MAD

From an engineering perspective, the I6 configuration is just brilliant. If Ford want to lower the bonnet height, make it a slant 6. Doesnt help witht he FWD application, but then the best thing to do there is not make a FWD application!

Beyond the naturally smooth characteristics of an I6 layout, i dont see too many more benefits to an I6. I can only really see the engine height being an issue for a V6, as the intake manifold can neither hang off the side of the engine or sit inside the V of a 60 degree motor. A V6 CAN be smooth, and whilst balance shafts and such might add weight to the motor, the Duratecs are all alloy whilst the I6 is still iron blocked, and likely always will be. The I6 is a headache for packaging as well being so long. If emissions regs and globalisation wont kill it, pedestrian crash test regulations will.

[SlowF6]

Originally Posted by MAD

I've heard plenty of people refer to the Ford engine as a V6.

I was telling a fella about what engine was in my car and I said it was a turbocharged 6 cylinder to which he believed was a V6. When I had explained that it was a straight six he replied with a chuckle and said "Oh they still use straight sixes these days" I guess the misinformed public see the inline six as a sort of dinosaur when compared to a compact V6 :(

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

Before judging Ecoboost V6 too strongly, remember that its more powerful in F150 than it is in Taurus, and likely would have the F150's figures (if not higher) if it went into Mustang and Falcon.

For me those figures are superb and would love to have one in the garage. I wonder how much PSI the 3.5L Ecoboost run at? A quick google answered that, seems the Honeywell turbochargers run at 12PSI from factory. I really like the classy front of the of Taurus SHO, but haven't grown on the rear end as of yet.

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

The I6 is a headache for packaging as well being so long. If emissions regs and globalisation wont kill it, pedestrian crash test regulations will.

Great point mate

[2011G6E]

Exactly...A V6 usually allows a lower package in the front of the car to allow even lower noses and bonnet lines to comply with pedestrian safety guidelines. That's why most new cars...most, but not all...have a nose that when you stand in front of it, is below your knees, to throw the pedestrian onto the bonnet instead of chucking them forward and under the wheels.

And don't say "they shouldn't be on the road in the first place"...car makers have to make allowances for these things...it's been going on for decades...when was the last time you saw a big hood ornament on a new car? It's all about minimising the risk to other road users, and that includes pedestrians and bike riders.

[Falc'man]

If for some miraculous reason the I6 hangs on then good. What the I6 fans (that includes me) should remember is that we're like a wart on the elbow in the Ford world. It'll be sad to see it go but, business is business, as they say.

Didn't one of the Ford engineers behind LPi state they could use LPi for various applications? An Ecoboost 2.0 4cyl with DCT and LPi (for God's sakes with run-flat tyres lol), would be unequalled for running costs. That could easily pump 200kW with a better torque curve than the current 4.0, and return figures of under 10L/100kms.

[RAPID_BA]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

at the end of the day there are 2 words that would turn anyone off a V6 Commodore (Buick) V6, remember the VN?

The vn was no slouch, it tore strips off the ford i6 of the same day (ea and eb).

Yes they felt like you were holding on to a jackhammer when taking off but damn they were quick. Off the line, used to put 2-3 lengths on the ea i6 straight away.

[EFFalcon]

Originally Posted by HULK_BA

The vn was no slouch, it tore strips off the ford i6 of the same day (ea and eb).

Yes they felt like you were holding on to a jackhammer when taking off but damn they were quick. Off the line, used to put 2-3 lengths on the ea i6 straight away.

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.

[mik]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

If for some miraculous reason the I6 hangs on then good. What the I6 fans (that includes me) should remember is that we're like a wart on the elbow in the Ford world. It'll be sad to see it go but, business is business, as they say.

Didn't one of the Ford engineers behind LPi state they could use LPi for various applications? An Ecoboost 2.0 4cyl with DCT and LPi (for God's sakes with run-flat tyres lol), would be unequalled for running costs. That could easily pump 200kW with a better torque curve than the current 4.0, and return figures of under 10L/100kms.

this is true, the company will do what ever they think will lead to more $$$ in the bank, and it seems to make business sense to use the engine that can be made and shipped world wide and used in many platforms instead of just one, that aside the best thing i like about the the falcon inline 6 is the way it is so effortless and low stressed,
i just hope the new motor has this qaulity if it should end up here.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Lak87 G6ET

Nice read this thread has been! Just doing some browsing and comparing between the 3.5L EB and our current competitor from Ford Australia:

3.5L Ecoboost V6 in the Taurus SHO
272KW at 5500rpm and 475NM of torque at 1500-5250rpm

4.0L Turbocharged I6 in the FG XR6/G6E Turbo
270KW at 5250rpm and 533NM (586NM with overboost) of torque from 1950rpm

Look up the RWD Ecoboost V6 that goes into F150 truck:

365 hp (272 Kw) @5000 rpm
420 lb Ft (567 nm) @ 2500 rpm

That would be a step up on our XR6 Turbo engine with a whole lot more to come.


For those that do not know, the Falcon I-6 DOHC has no provisioning for Direct Injection,
in order to fit it, the cylinder head would have to be significantly redesigned and anyone
left wondering, no that is not on the agenda, not when you have to get the government
to sponsor your engine development program...Perhaps a plan for post 2016 and Euro 6?

[SlowF6]

Just had a quick look and those figures look great!

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Lak87 G6ET

Just had a quick look and those figures look great!

The Ecoboost 2.0 going into the Explorer makes 240 hp (179 Kw) and 270 lb ft (365 nm) from 1700-4000
if you scaled that power level up to a 3.5 V6, that amounts to 313 Kw and 636 nm....

[AMGC63]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Look up the RWD Ecoboost V6 that goes into F150 truck:

365 hp (272 Kw) @5000 rpm
420 lb Ft (567 nm) @ 2500 rpm

That would be a step up on our XR6 Turbo engine with a whole lot more to come.


For those that do not know, the Falcon I-6 DOHC has no provisioning for Direct Injection,
in order to fit it, the cylinder head would have to be significantly redesigned and anyone
left wondering, no that is not on the agenda, not when you have to get the government
to sponsor your engine development program...Perhaps a plan for post 2016 and Euro 6?

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.

[jpd80]

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.

The other problem is that people look at the botched up 3.6 SIDI and think that's the measure for all V6 engines...
The 3.6 Alloytec was a last minute stretch on an already maxed out V6 design demanded by Holden and Cadillac.
that means the engine has inherent compromises in design. By contrast, the 3.5/3.7 Duratec V6 has no such
compromises and makes near identical power to the SIDIs with port injection, it's a better mousetrap right out of the box.
GM can only dream of having a V6 Ecoboost rival, their TT 3.0 V6 was an abisimal failure in Cadillac and has
now been dropped after frequent failures due to detonation damage......GM can't match Ecoboost software,
they are a generation behind and they know it...

[AMGC63]

Originally Posted by jpd80

The other problem is that people look at the botched up 3.6 SIDI and think that's the measure for all V6 engines...
The 3.6 Alloytec was a last minute stretch on an already maxed out V6 design demanded by Holden and Cadillac.
that means the engine has inherent compromises in design. By contrast, the 3.5/3.7 Duratec V6 has no such
compromises and makes near identical power to the SIDIs with port injection, it's a better mousetrap right out of the box.
GM can only dream of having a V6 Ecoboost rival, their TT 3.0 V6 was an abisimal failure in Cadillac and has
now been dropped after frequent failures due to detonation damage......GM can't match Ecoboost software,
they are a generation behind and they know it...

Thats the bit i really dont understand, just because the early buick V6 was a dud doesnt mean all V6's are duds.
Very narrow minded and short sighted. Its like saying all V8's a bad because of the leyland V8...
People need to stop judging all V6's because of 1 failure.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by AMGC63

Thats the bit i really dont understand, just because the early buick V6 was a dud doesnt mean all V6's are duds.
Very narrow minded and short sighted. Its like saying all V8's a bad because of the leyland V8...
People need to stop judging all V6's because of 1 failure.

Fear.
If we use US V6 and 6R80, it is a sure thing in people's mind to be an abject failure
and unfortunately, the more you try to educate, the more fans close ranks and close minds.

A lot of people don't know that FoA put in a bid to build the cyclone V6 and export the engines to the USA,
they only just missed out and that huge contract with two engine plants went to the USA......

[MITCHAY]

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