turbo four Falc will outpace a Holden Commodore 3.0-litre V6

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by MexicanBatman

Yeah but the ecoboost has just a regular old turbo, my car can make peak boost before you read what I'm writing, but it's not comparable to n/a grunt

Off boost in a high gear at low load, it's just a 4 banger until the turbo winds up and 337nm of torque is summoned to haul 1800kg

On paper it will work just fine, but drive it like a falcon and don't expect fantastic economy

Just like the above mentioned Mercedes gdi read the reviews, about where it can't get below 10l/100km real world, who cares what's claimed, that's tested in a lab by a guy wearing a white coat on a dynamometer, not by me driving to the shops and back.

I also have nothing against 4 bangers and turbos, I recently had a 3 banger turbo, but from all the cars I've driven small engines in large body's and high weight just doesn't work like they'd have you think

The new Explorer with the 2.0L EcoBoost engine has this going for it....

The Ecoboost I-4 engine for the 2011 Ford Explorer develops about 237 horsepower at 5,500 rpm with 250 lb-ft of torque. Peak torque is generated at a low 1,700 rpm across a broadband to 4,000 rpm.

The 302 (Cleveland and non-Cleveland) made 300 lb.-ft. of torque at 2,600 RPM. It PEAKED at 2,600 and then fell off. This 4 banger is hitting 250 lb.-ft. at 1,700 and staying there until 4,000 rpm. What is the torque of the 302's at 1,700 and 4,000 RPM? I think with the peaky torque curve of the V8's that the 4 banger would be comparable at those RPM's, if not excede them a little, but I am guessing.

The turbo (only 1 turbo on the 4) is not "just a regular old turbo." It is the latest in technology for spooling up quickly without turbo lag, making more boost with a smaller size, and engineered to better withstand the thermal abuses that a turbo must take on a regular basis.

Sure, it will not have a V8 feel, and no one is saying it will. What Ford wants people to expect from the 2.0L EcoBoost engine is that the car will be able to move as much as it needs to without the driver feeling they are sacrificing anything. The result is higher fuel mileage for those not looking for a performance car. The Explorer is probably a few pounds heavier and less aerodynamic than the Falcon too.

Personally, I think this engine will be a perfect fit for a lot of people, those who want a falcon sized car and ride, one that gets around just fine without any worries about pulling out into traffic, and rewards them with better fuel economy.


Steve

[DJM83]

Couldnt care what its like in the falcon, im more interested in what its like in the Focus ST

[tapeworm]

I dare say the Falcon engine bay with a wee little 4cyl sitting in it will be lol material. It sounds good though..it'll be interesting to hear how it handles with the weight taken out of the front too. I think many people will pre-conceive the small engine in a heavy Falcon as a fail, so if it smokes a Commodore I think it should be a good demo of how effective the little turbo four can be..

[vztrt]

Ohio, what's the mileage of the 2L explorer?

[XR Martin]

Sorry, the weight and consumption figures I posted for the Mercedes 250CGI were actually for the CDI diesel, not the Petrol. Although I got the number from the Mercedes site.
Wheels mag quote 1650kg, and 7.6l/100km

I think the Falcon Ecoboost will be smack on about that.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by tapeworm

I dare say the Falcon engine bay with a wee little 4cyl sitting in it will be lol material. It sounds good though..it'll be interesting to hear how it handles with the weight taken out of the front too. I think many people will pre-conceive the small engine in a heavy Falcon as a fail, so if it smokes a Commodore I think it should be a good demo of how effective the little turbo four can be..

I'd imagine they will concieve some sort of largish engine cover to give the illusion of size and therefore power to the average Joe bogan ocker who may decide that there could never be any chance of a 4cyl beating his XE 4.1, and therefore isn't worth a #hit

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by Danny

I'd imagine they will concieve some sort of largish engine cover to give the illusion of size and therefore power to the average Joe bogan ocker who may decide that there could never be any chance of a 4cyl beating his XE 4.1, and therefore isn't worth a #hit

Yup, lots and lots of plastic. Looked under the bonnet of my cousins VE SV6 a couple of months ago....all you can see is plastic.

Wouldn't want to have to change the battery though.....

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

Yup, lots and lots of plastic. Looked under the bonnet of my cousins VE SV6 a couple of months ago....all you can see is plastic.

Wouldn't want to have to change the battery though.....

Its in the boot....

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Its in the boot....

Yeah, inside the lining with only a small opening from what I could see. I assume you'd have to remove the lining to pull the battery out...

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by blueoval

Good diff gearing combined with the 6spd ZF gearbox and boost should help this thing get off the lights quite spritely. I don't think it will be a slouch but I dont think the target maket is for a 1/4 burner either as already stated. Obviously it has a lot to do with efficiency. If balanced right it will be a great option for those who want a bit bigger car than a Mondeo/Focus and still want to maintain some reasonable running costs.

The first gear ratio of the ZF is 4.17:1 which is incredibly short. Off boost / light throttle it will still retain the hi-compression direct injected 4 banger torque. Okay, it won't be exactly like the I6. But, it isn't meant to be either!

But, that short ratio will really help it off the line. Think about the tiny levels of torque from the 3.0 SIDI. They aren't fast, but the gearing helps get them off the line and makes them feel / sound fast. This ECOboost is going to be faster than that car anyway. Which will put ECOboost Falcon miles in front of Camry.

[Polyal]

I just hope that the people buying them understand why they are buying them.

Wanting a falcon is great, but if they think they are going to tow big loads and be better off in a I4T than a I6 then theres going to be tears and frustrated people...

The sales chain is going to need to step up this year, and if Ford's "lack" of aggression in the marketing stakes has been absent over the past few years for all hell to break loose this year then I am looking forward to it.

Talk about pressure.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Sorry, the weight and consumption figures I posted for the Mercedes 250CGI were actually for the CDI diesel, not the Petrol. Although I got the number from the Mercedes site.
Wheels mag quote 1650kg, and 7.6l/100km

I think the Falcon Ecoboost will be smack on about that.

Yeah, thats really good economy for a midsive car at a very comparable weight to an I4T ECOboost Falcon.

Here's a link to an 2011 ECOboost S-MAX

http://www.distrocar.com/2011-ford-s...-engine-203-ps

Originally Posted by distrocar

The 2.0-litre EcoBoost SCTi engine has a maximum output of 203 PS (149kW) at 5,500 rpm, combined with maximum torque of 300 Nm, which is delivered across a broad 1,750-4,500 rpm range. With this new powertrain, the Ford S-MAX achieves 0-100km/h (0-62 mph) acceleration in 8.5 seconds (8.8 seconds for the Ford Galaxy) and a top speed of 221 km/h (137 mph) – 217 km/h (135 mph) for the Ford Galaxy.

Yet even with this responsive performance, fuel economy and CO2 emissions from the new engine are significantly improved. Compared with the previous 161 PS 2.3-litre automatic powertrain, CO2 emissions are reduced by 19 per cent to 189 g/km, even though the new 2.0-litre SCTi engine has over 25 per cent more power. This translates into a combined fuel economy of just 8.1 l/100 km (34.8 mpg) and an extra urban figure of 6.4 l/100 km (44.1 mpg).

http://www.carfolio.com/specificatio...ar/?car=218152

The S-Max weighs 1774kg, and despite a good drag figure of 0.310 which is comparable to FG Falcon, being a peoplemover has a much bigger frontal area and CDa of 0.82 due to it's height of 1660mm versus FG's 1453mm.

Mondeo ECOboost is 1588kg, CD of 0.300 and CDa of 0.70. Fuel economy of Fuel consumption 10.7/6.9/7.7 l/100km urban/extra-urban/combined

So a flat 8.0L/100km would be a great result. Particularly depending on outputs.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Wanting a falcon is great, but if they think they are going to tow big loads and be better off in a I4T than a I6 then theres going to be tears and frustrated people...

There seems to be a lot of underground towing going on with the I6. I can't remember the last time I saw a Falcon towing something. I'd say 99% of the Falcons on the road have never towed a load.

There's probably a tongue twister in there, somewhere.

[XR Martin]

Dunno about 99% have never towed a load, but 99% have towbars....

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by DJM83

Couldnt care what its like in the falcon, im more interested in what its like in the Focus ST

with you on that one.

[GK]

Hopefully as has been said above, the fleets will be the main aim of the ecoboost, and hopefully they'll be all over it. how good would it be to see Ford in favour again with government fleets?

Ford really need to push this new engine with its advertising. Likewise with the diesel Territory, likewise with the new LPG system when it finally arrives.

Ford have lots of great products, but just have so much trouble getting people to test drive them.

They really need to ramp up the ads and maybe even offer $50 for a test drive or something. It'd be tax deductable and would get people in for a drive I'd say.

Sounds a little desperate I know, but honestly, how low do Territory, Falcon, Mondeo and Focus sales have to go before they pull out all stops and create some perception of belief in the product?

That's what Holden do so well with their ads. They must make people feel good and proud to buy and drive one. We need to capture that spirit with our next lot of ads, otherwise all that great technology and work will go down the drain, along with more sales.

GK

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Rodp

There seems to be a lot of underground towing going on with the I6. I can't remember the last time I saw a Falcon towing something. I'd say 99% of the Falcons on the road have never towed a load.

[GASWAGON]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Oh that's a new argument. Ford never thought of that! Sorry for the sarcasm. But would you consider the F-150 to be a big car? It now has an EcoBoost, which gets better mileage than the larger naturally aspirated engines. About 2mpg better than the 5.0, and about 5mpg better than the 6.2L. With more low end torque than both of them! If it works for a truck, why can't it work for a car?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd6YY5Vp3OQ (torque)

Holy Smoke... The V6 in these tube clips kicks ***.... The turbo's are water cooled!!!! VERY impressive engine and testing and results indeed .... Check the Drag tow tests between the big V8's...... Woah!

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Ohio, what's the mileage of the 2L explorer?

Ford states that the 2.0L EcoBoost engine will have a 30% improvement in fuel mileage over the last version of the Explorer. This is copy and pasted from a post I found on the internet, posted at the Motortrend message board in last September...

"...A 30% hike over the current Explorer 4.0 V6 (rated at 14/20) for the 2.0 Ecoboost is 18/26."


There isn't anything on Ford's site for the Explorer about the 2.0L fuel economy yet because it is not available yet, apparently. To be accurate to their claim it has to get 18.2 mpg city/ 26 mpg highway. This is US standards though of course.

With the Falcon being a little lighter and a lot more aerodynamic I would think about 20 mpg city/28 mpg highway, by US standards.




I am also waiting for the Focus ST!!!!


Steve

[Jason[98.EL]]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

Ford states that the 2.0L EcoBoost engine will have a 30% improvement in fuel mileage over the last version of the Explorer. This is copy and pasted from a post I found on the internet, posted at the Motortrend message board in last September...

"...A 30% hike over the current Explorer 4.0 V6 (rated at 14/20) for the 2.0 Ecoboost is 18/26."


There isn't anything on Ford's site for the Explorer about the 2.0L fuel economy yet because it is not available yet, apparently. To be accurate to their claim it has to get 18.2 mpg city/ 26 mpg highway. This is US standards though of course.

With the Falcon being a little lighter and a lot more aerodynamic I would think about 20 mpg city/28 mpg highway, by US standards.




I am also waiting for the Focus ST!!!!


Steve

Still impressive mpg

should put the falcon as one of the most if not the most economical large car in aus

Jason

[Ohio XB]

Ford has a policy here of being competitive with each new vehicle it introduces, and it will either make more power or get better fuel mileage as well. They are making better value by adding content to vehicles so when you compare the "new" Ford to the competition you see that the Ford, even if the ride, handling, and quietness is the same as others, will have more content and be a better value with more power, or more fuel mileage, than anything else. It's been a pretty good strategy so far.

Mulally stresses fuel mileage, fuel mileage, fuel mileage. He told Derrick Kuzak several years ago, if the Explorer does not lose weight and get better fuel mileage it was dead, period. Derrick loves a challenge. ;)


Steve

[GASWAGON]

So turbo design and doulble cam phasing has made ALL the difference it seems?? Excellent torque figures and economy too..

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by EF_6

So turbo design and doulble cam phasing has made ALL the difference it seems?? Excellent torque figures and economy too..

ECU, and transmissions also.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by phillyc

Yeah, thats really good economy for a midsive car at a very comparable weight to an I4T ECOboost Falcon.

Here's a link to an 2011 ECOboost S-MAX

http://www.distrocar.com/2011-ford-s...-engine-203-ps



http://www.carfolio.com/specificatio...ar/?car=218152

The S-Max weighs 1774kg, and despite a good drag figure of 0.310 which is comparable to FG Falcon, being a peoplemover has a much bigger frontal area and CDa of 0.82 due to it's height of 1660mm versus FG's 1453mm.

Mondeo ECOboost is 1588kg, CD of 0.300 and CDa of 0.70. Fuel economy of Fuel consumption 10.7/6.9/7.7 l/100km urban/extra-urban/combined

So a flat 8.0L/100km would be a great result. Particularly depending on outputs.

Good post Phill but i fear until the engine is atcually in the car and real world results are being reported on the relevant websites (such as here) some people will never be convinced. I posted a very similar comparison in a thread ages ago dealing with this issue (when it was first announced) using comparisons to other manufacturers that had similar tech in similar cars. Then i put another post in the same thread when the mondeo/s max got the exact same engine ford was going to use. At every step of the way (and with US models now getting the engine evidence is not in short supply) the numbers HAVE stacked up for this concept. Do people really think Ford (and most other manufacturers) would put their faith in this ecoboost style tech for all their cars globally if it wasn't going to work? Have they no understanding of how engineering and product design works? Ford has had Ecoboost style 4 cylinders in falcon mules for years right here in Aus and overseas they have been testing the concept in its early design stages literally for nearly a decade. It works. Period.

Now i'm not saying every application is going to be equal for every manufacturer but it is the future and it will work. Its quite possible that if you were to do 200k+ kms the reliability would be inferior to say the I6 (needing turbo parts etc.) and if you buy it and proceed to tow its max rated load every day or drive around with your foot to the floor it will probably burn just as much if not more than an I6. BUT, given falcon drivers spend alot of time these days stuck of the bum of slower 4pot small cars, stopped at lights or hobbled by restrictive speed limits than why wouldnt' you offer such a drivetrain? It won't burn any more than the I6 when under load and it sure as hell will burn less when idling and cruising along off boost.

Alot of mondeo owners on here have been demanding ford offer the 2.0 I4T ecoboost donk in the mondeo (delayed use in aus probably to save the thunder for the falcon) and that car is almost as big and only 100kg lighter if that. European tests show its got way more go than the current 2.3 I4 NA engine and burns less too. Why does changing the end that drives the wheels suddenly invalidate this real world proof??

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Good post Phill but i fear until the engine is atcually in the car and real world results are being reported on the relevant websites (such as here) some people will never be convinced. I posted a very similar comparison in a thread ages ago dealing with this issue (when it was first announced) using comparisons to other manufacturers that had similar tech in similar cars. Then i put another post in the same thread when the mondeo/s max got the exact same engine ford was going to use. At every step of the way (and with US models now getting the engine evidence is not in short supply) the numbers HAVE stacked up for this concept. Do people really think Ford (and most other manufacturers) would put their faith in this ecoboost style tech for all their cars globally if it wasn't going to work? Have they no understanding of how engineering and product design works? Ford has had Ecoboost style 4 cylinders in falcon mules for years right here in Aus and overseas they have been testing the concept in its early design stages literally for nearly a decade. It works. Period.

Now i'm not saying every application is going to be equal for every manufacturer but it is the future and it will work. Its quite possible that if you were to do 200k+ kms the reliability would be inferior to say the I6 (needing turbo parts etc.) and if you buy it and proceed to tow its max rated load every day or drive around with your foot to the floor it will probably burn just as much if not more than an I6. BUT, given falcon drivers spend alot of time these days stuck of the bum of slower 4pot small cars, stopped at lights or hobbled by restrictive speed limits than why wouldnt' you offer such a drivetrain? It won't burn any more than the I6 when under load and it sure as hell will burn less when idling and cruising along off boost.

Alot of mondeo owners on here have been demanding ford offer the 2.0 I4T ecoboost donk in the mondeo (delayed use in aus probably to save the thunder for the falcon) and that car is almost as big and only 100kg lighter if that. European tests show its got way more go than the current 2.3 I4 NA engine and burns less too. Why does changing the end that drives the wheels suddenly invalidate this real world proof??

Thanks Swordy! For many, the proof will be in the eating and the cake is being baked right now

Still doesn't stop me from feeling that the TDV6 in the Falcon, particularly the ute, an RTV version at that would have sold a storm. BUT, it seems that the fitment in the engine bay, was perhaps no so straight forward as it is a high and wide engine with some ancillaries perhaps in non-ideal for Falcon positions.

Back to ECOboost. In the Drive section of the Newcastle Herald, they did a writeup of the new small-medium Kia Cerata which is a DI 2L 4 pot. It's economy is 7.7L/100km. So, if the ECOboost Falcon can get 8L/100km then that is a stout effort.

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by Rodp

There seems to be a lot of underground towing going on with the I6. I can't remember the last time I saw a Falcon towing something. I'd say 99% of the Falcons on the road have never towed a load.

Just about every trailer I see on the road (including mine) has a Falcon in front of it towing it along.

[Chilliman]

Originally Posted by Bobman

Just about every trailer I see on the road (including mine) has a Falcon in front of it towing it along.

The inline six will still be available for those who need it. EcoBoost isn't about the traditional Falcon buyer, they've been dwindling for years now. Its all about getting new people interested in Falcon, those who would never look at Falcon cause they see it as a guzzler and getting volume purchases from fleets that have stringent emmisions/fuel consumption targets like government fleets.

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by Chilliman

those who would never look at Falcon cause they see it as a guzzler

and thats going to be one of fords biggest challenges... how do they convince buyers thats its anything otherwise. so many people just look at a falcon (or commodore) and instantly assume big car = fuel guzzler.

[Bobman]

Commodore is a gas guzzler and still sells well.

You can't change people's perceptions because you can't do much for stupidity!

[1TUFFUTE]

exactly...when holden started making the comadore look bigger with things like the pumped gaurds on the ve i thought here we go..fords takin the euro slim design look ...pah yeah like it made any diff. Not likely. Brand loyaolty does horrific things lol