Why Didn't Ford Offer A Smaller Engine?

[Qwerty321]

Let me just start by saying I'm a long standing fan of the falcon range and it's derivatives (Fairlane, Fairmont etc.). Personally I think the Boss V8s and the Barra I6s are among the best engines in existence.

That said, which idiot at Ford thought it would be viable to market a standard family sedan with a 4L Straight 6 and 5L+ V8 as the only engine options. I have a BA and regardless of how you look at it, the 4L is thirsty and the V8s will be worse, no doubt. Now I don't mind the extra petrol expense cause I enjoy driving this car, but for the average consumer it's easy to see how the falcon fell off the charts. Honestly, it makes no sense to have a 4L engine as the smallest/most efficient engine available when marketing a mainstream family sedan (not a sports car). I know that Ford now offer a Ecoboost (2L?) engine in the FG falcon, but this is a little bit too late now isn't it. The only people still buying falcons are enthusiasts who want the I6 or the V8.

My question is simple, why did Ford Australia for so long hold onto only offering large engines? Why not offer a smaller engine as the base option on the falcons since the early 2000's when people started migrating to smaller engines due to rising petrol costs?

[Adamz Ghia]

As opposed to a 3.0 from Holden which uses a poofteenth less fuel than Barra?

[FERG_51]

Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia

As opposed to a 3.0 from Holden which uses a poofteenth less fuel than Barra?

And a s*** load of oil between services.

[FPV GTHO]

They had 3.3 engines for a long time but when they updated to SOHC and had the 3.2 it bombed pretty bad. They were either too burnt to look back at a shorter stroke 6, or they kept doing it and it didnt stack up. If you go with a smaller capacity engine, you really want it physically smaller so you get the weight saving too, which isnt going to happen when you share the basics. If you adopt a global V6 around 3L then you invite someone to come in and replace the bigger engine with a V6 as well, not to mention the extra effort in developing a 3rd engine variant. By the time a turbo 4 cylinder was feasible, they were pretty much already on it.

[Windsor220]

Before the Ecoboost engines came to be what engine would have been available or suitable? You can't just chuck a Focus motor in there.

[chevypower]

I've been saying for a long time, the Falcon should have become Ford's global 4 door sports sedan. It shouldn't try to be competing as an economy car, though fuel economy is important. It tried to be all things to all people for too long, and we have moved on from those days. Now you have to have cars with a true identity of what they are. A 4 door sports car for the whole world would have been great. FCA needs to make the Charger global also, but it is an example of where Ford should have positioned the Falcon. They will never win over Camry buyers, it's a completely different customer.

[Qwerty321]

Originally Posted by chevypower

I've been saying for a long time, the Falcon should have become Ford's global 4 door sports sedan. It shouldn't try to be competing as an economy car, though fuel economy is important. It tried to be all things to all people for too long, and we have moved on from those days. Now you have to have cars with a true identity of what they are. A 4 door sports car for the whole world would have been great. FCA needs to make the Charger global also, but it is an example of where Ford should have positioned the Falcon. They will never win over Camry buyers, it's a completely different customer.

This. Your bang on. Marketing the Falcon as a mid range family sedan and having it compete directly with the likes of the Camry was a big mistake. Should have made it a global sports sedan and had it compete with the likes of the Dodge Charger.

Comparing Fords strategy to Holden's isn't really winning anything. Holden too is guilty of making the same mistakes, that's why their closing down as well. The only viable manufacturer in Australia was Toyota, but you can't support an entire industry with just one company, supplier costs become way too high.

[Maka]

Post 2003, Fords big car range were a bit too heavy for a smaller, less torquey but advanced motor. Maybe if they weighed 150kg lighter, it might have been a reality who knows?

cheer's, Maka

[LTDHO]

Holden tried a 4 cylinder and you will find every one of them will now have a 6 or an 8. Ming you it was around 1980 and engines have come a long way.

I swear Ford looked into a turbo 4 (maybe turbo) for falcon.

[commodorenutt]

Originally Posted by chevypower

I've been saying for a long time, the Falcon should have become Ford's global 4 door sports sedan.

Both Ford Australia and Holden should have done this a lot better.

Holden's attempt with the G8 and Chevy SS both failed to shift more than a trickle in mass-production volumes, for all manner of reasons. However, GM did use the chassis development extensively in the Camaro.

When you look back to the 1960s where the Mustang was born from basically a Falcon chassis, the same should have been done with the BA/BF/FG IRS rear, instead of the live axle the previous Mustang had.
Think of the shared development costs for a global chassis based on the FG, think of the potential for US Police cars like Holden have done with the Caprice. Ford USA are just too pig-headed to let the Aussie ingenuity blossom.

I work for an American company, and the guys that come over & visit are astounded by the Falcon & Commodore size & performance. Several of them have wanted to look into how to get a Falcon back to the USA. 2 of them now own G8s, bought 2nd hand, after experiencing the VE 6.0L in Australia, and one guy has a deposit on a Chevy SS - he's really a Ford guy - but the Mustang is impractical for his family on the weekend, and the Dodge was his only other option.

Originally Posted by chevypower

They will never win over Camry buyers, it's a completely different customer.

There's 2 Ecoboosts at work now - privately bought, from people who previously owned Camrys. Both love the additional power & torque over the Camry, and are happy with their purchase.
Mind you, the I6 blew one of them away with how "quick" it was compared to what he's been used to - but he's only ever owned I4s.
With better marketing, it could have converted a fair few more.

[66GT]

I prefer the fuel bill, running expenses & driving/transmission feel of my 200000km AU Forte than my 200000km V6 Escape. As a family we have put approx 50K on both mainly round town, but both have recently done 4-5000 km holiday trips. The usability of the Escape wins out but the size, comfort & assurance from the AU especially when it comes to overtaking a roadtrain cannot be understated. But I agree that a smaller, more economical version could have sold well over the 10yrs or so.

[superyob]

This is a vexing question because there are so many variables that combined to create the perfect storm that eventually killed the Falcon. I don't see that not offering a smaller engine was one of those factors...

[EB#]

Ford AUS sold around 73,000 BA Falcons in 2003. Back then, there was no need for a smaller engine Falcon with that sort of turnover. Aussies loved the 6 and 8 cylinder engines, regardless of the fuel economy.

Fast forward to the later, more diversified local market and Ford managed to sell about 9000 FG Falcons 2014 (that's nearly 90% down on '03 figures). By the time the 4 cylinder Falcon had arrived, which was a political exercise as much as a fuel economy offering, the horse had well and truly bolted into the SUV, sport truck and small car brackets. Even though the critics lauded the 4 cylinder Falcon, nobody wanted to buy a Falcon.... of any engine type. A flashy advertising campaign would not have changed that situation in my opinion. Ford AUS were painstakingly slow in developing engine options... they were notably very late to market in getting a diesel engine into the Territory.

I agree with Chevypower in part.... a Falcon buyer is certainly a different market than a Camry buyer. However, given the utterly spectacular nosedive that Falcon sales suffered I could not see any reasoning for the profit-driven behemoth of Ford US to seriously contemplate the Falcon as some sort of global sedan model, when they already have the Fusion/Mondeo and the Taurus? - Note that about 306,000 Fusions were sold in the US in 2014, at 10th best seller, but the Taurus did not place in the top 25. A 'niche placed' Falcon may have been an outside possibility of some kind, but I'll bet the numbers never stacked up in any way.

Although a small portion of the Australian marketplace is somewhat sentimental about the Falcon (me included), profit is king in this situation - both locally and abroad.

[MethodX]

Originally Posted by chevypower

I've been saying for a long time, the Falcon should have become Ford's global 4 door sports sedan. It shouldn't try to be competing as an economy car, though fuel economy is important. It tried to be all things to all people for too long, and we have moved on from those days. Now you have to have cars with a true identity of what they are. A 4 door sports car for the whole world would have been great. FCA needs to make the Charger global also, but it is an example of where Ford should have positioned the Falcon. They will never win over Camry buyers, it's a completely different customer.

Couldn't Ford US make a 4 door Mustang if they wanted this though?
They don't like to be outdone by a tiny outpost.

[castellan]

This is Australia not NZ.

NZ got all the small engines
130ci 6 cyl in the Holden HK to HQ
And NZ got all of this crap 4 cyl VK commodore and 2.0L 6 cyl in the VL and a 2.0L 4 cyl VN-P, VR 2.6 6 cyl and a VS 2.5L V6 I think.
Such rubbish would never be worth to sell in Australia market as only old dopy tight wads would buy rubbish like that and the resale would be rubbish here.

I thing Ford Australia knew what the product they were selling and did it well as did Holden.

I on the other hand I wanted a OHC 3.9L or 4.0L from the 1988 XF ute not that gutless old 4.1L they offered and I got up them about it and said at least a EFI 4.1L should be an option and I sure as hell was not going to buy the crap they dished up, but many dopey Aussies did not know any better, so Ford must of known better.
Resale of my 1993 XG ute was no better than the 1992 XF rubbish when I sold it in 1995 and people were that stupid they did not know that the XG was a much better car than the bad on fuel and totally gutless XF garbage.

A smaller engine in the falcons just would not sell and it would only harm the reputation of the falcon as for what the car was classed for and the 4cyl commodore was a dud that stank, bad on fuel and gutless as, that it only appealed to stupid old idiots and backward morons.

Ford knew what they were doing.

[aussiblue]

This question implies that more Falcon (and Commodore) sales would have saved local production. It wouldn't have; it was about cost of production in Australia versus Thailand, China. Korea etc and the small scale of Australian manufacturing operations, distance from other markets and the fact that Australians car buyers shop by price before loyalty to Oz made. It also has a little bit to do with fact that we do not punish unfair completion fro places like China and South Korea where wages costs are reduced by Government suppression of trade unions.

[olfella]

Originally Posted by superyob

This is a vexing question because there are so many variables that combined to create the perfect storm that eventually killed the Falcon. I don't see that not offering a smaller engine was one of those factors...

I agree and will throw in the issue with the drivers seat (being to high) and a lot of women did not like it because they had problems seeing out. Which when thrown into the mix makes marketing difficult target to a specific buyer.

[CyberWasp]

Yeah why didn't they use the 1.0 Ecoboost Engine?

[Wretched]

Ford were in the process of migrating to a smaller V6 (from the US). A political own goal pretty much stopped that and they continued to use the I6 (I6 is good but really limited application).
This limited export opportunities.

However this alone didn't stop the shutdown of local manufacturing of Falcon, those nails were being hammered into the coffin over the years by a number of factors (aging infrastructure, cost of business, limited development and application, etc).

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Ford were in the process of migrating to a smaller V6 (from the US). A political own goal pretty much stopped that and they continued to use the I6 (I6 is good but really limited application).
This limited export opportunities.

However this alone didn't stop the shutdown of local manufacturing of Falcon, those nails were being hammered into the coffin over the years by a number of factors (aging infrastructure, cost of business, limited development and application, etc).

What can a V6 do that an I6 can't?

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by superyob

What can a V6 do that an I6 can't?

Packaging. Can then be used in a number of other vehicle configurations.
Using the V6 would have allowed a shared platform for Falcon, cutting costs.

[Express]

Originally Posted by superyob

What can a V6 do that an I6 can't?

In a family sedan where your budget is controlled by the retail price which limits the use of expensive materials in the manufacturing process, the compact V6 can be pushed back further to give the vehicle better driving dynamics.

[damo76]

When the falcons had the 3.3 years ago, when it came time to resell no one wanted the 3.3 only the 4.1.
Who wants a small engine in a full sized car, silly really.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by damo76

When the falcons had the 3.3 years ago, when it came time to resell no one wanted the 3.3 only the 4.1.
Who wants a small engine in a full sized car, silly really.

That was a life time ago.
The world has changed since then, and this where Ford suffered, sticking with what worked for a period of time, ignoring the inevitable change in the industry, listening to the wrong people and then wondering why no one is buying their cars.

[ryanstev]

Rather than smaller engines, Ford should have sold a smaller car.

I like the Falcon, but if I was to buy a new car, it'd be a hatchback, I'm done with sedans, unfortunately the Falcon stationwagon is simply huge and way too much car for me.

Falcons in general are way too heavy, they have tech that I don't need, which makes them even heavier and they're expensive.

Ford should have considered a basic hatchback version, eg, the stationwagon but smaller wheel base and less boot.
I would have loved a V8 hatch or even just a 4 litre straight 6 hatch.

Ford and Holden were going after the exact same, shrinking markets, the Australian made sedan, stationwagon, ute. One of them could have tried something different and had the market to themselves.

[Express]

Originally Posted by ryanstev

Ford should have considered a basic hatchback version, eg, the stationwagon but smaller wheel base and less boot.
I would have loved a V8 hatch or even just a 4 litre straight 6 hatch.

The truth is basic cars in any form don’t sell well enough anymore to make them viable.

Today consumers who are always trying to get as much tech and features as possible for as little cash as possible and that's why it’s hard to compete with the appeal of the Asians when it comes to the mix of appointments versus RRP.

[FNQracing]

Ford were so complacent in relying on Fleet sales, they forgot how to compete in a rapidly changing market. Quality was too slow to improve, tech and features were way too slow to be introduced that private buyers were looking elsewhere. Falcons were (comparatively speaking) sh!te boxes compared to Japanese models until recently, I'd say around the time the EF was introduced. Prior to that, Falcons were rough and crude.

[mac_man_luke]

IMO weight reduction is more important than engine size.

We have a Kuga with the 2L ecoboost and its uses similar amounts of fuel as a 4L falcon (and similar weights) around town.

Also i think peoples tastes have just changed, people want small cars or SUVs

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by MethodX

Couldn't Ford US make a 4 door Mustang if they wanted this though?
They don't like to be outdone by a tiny outpost.

They could, but that would then give the Mustang an identity crisis. That was what I was getting at. It has to be its own vehicle. No station wagon version, just a pure 4 door sports sedan with its own distinct identity. If Ford believed there was a market for it in the US, they would just build it here. But the development could be global and multiple factories can build the same car for different regions, as they do with other vehicles.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Qwerty321

My question is simple, why did Ford Australia for so long hold onto only offering large engines? Why not offer a smaller engine as the base option on the falcons since the early 2000's when people started migrating to smaller engines due to rising petrol costs?

Fords engines have always come out of the Geelong plant.(correct me if im wrong)
as above the smaller V6 from the US got canned to keep Geelong running.
(does anybody know if Geelong were working on a smaller engine design?)

The belated imported diesel for the Territory was released in 2011, perhaps the Falcon should have gotten the same treatment.

You have to remember the falcon is a big car so putting a smaller engine in it wouldn't always equate the better economy.
Its not until the technology of ecoboost came along that's its been possible.

by that time it was too late, nobody cared. Ford hardly advertised it