Ford's local six could live on

[phillyc]

For the sake of everyone elses sanity. KPCart and Z80 please leave the thread. You've both had your invalid points SMASHED.

Everyone else, just remember. Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Go the mighty Barra/Orion 6!

[Falc'man]

He ain't man enough to be her.

Originally Posted by kpcart

not the falcon - its about 99nm per litre! most DI v6s are similar, which is also quite impressive as they are made in smaller capacity, and they have better economy and fit better in cars that will sell.

You just shot down your own argument. A V6 NEEDS d.i. to come close, but is still lower. FYI the current 4.0 has OVER 100Nm/litre, WITHOUT d.i.

[drew`SEVNT5]

Originally Posted by phillyc

Go the mighty Barra/Orion 6!

It may be mighty, it may not be... I think, as an engine to drive (and not just **** over numbers in a brochure) it is decidedly average, but honest in a tractor-style way.

But, this is clear: Going forward, if the Falcon is to have any hope of staying RWD, V6 nestled in behind the front axle line is where the powertrain development coin needs to go.

I6 is like a dinosaur that saw something in the sky and is wondering what the hell that big bang was and why the ground is shaking.... The end, 'tis near.

And a more advanced, lighter/more compact entity is going to take its place.

[2011G6E]

BMW have done some rather tasty things with straight sixes over the years, and got rediculous power outputs, reliability, and economy out of them at the same time.
It can be done, it just requires large wads of the folding and the will to do it.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by drew`SEVNT5

It may be mighty, it may not be... I think, as an engine to drive (and not just **** over numbers in a brochure) it is decidedly average, but honest in a tractor-style way.

But, this is clear: Going forward, if the Falcon is to have any hope of staying RWD, V6 nestled in behind the front axle line is where the powertrain development coin needs to go.

I6 is like a dinosaur that saw something in the sky and is wondering what the hell that big bang was and why the ground is shaking.... The end, 'tis near.

And a more advanced, lighter/more compact entity is going to take its place.

You'd make a good scribe for Drive.

[boris]

Originally Posted by drew`SEVNT5

It may be mighty, it may not be... I think, as an engine to drive (and not just **** over numbers in a brochure) it is decidedly average, but honest in a tractor-style way.

But, this is clear: Going forward, if the Falcon is to have any hope of staying RWD, V6 nestled in behind the front axle line is where the powertrain development coin needs to go.

I6 is like a dinosaur that saw something in the sky and is wondering what the **** that big bang was and why the ground is shaking.... The end, 'tis near.

And a more advanced, lighter/more compact entity is going to take its place.

the beauty of the 4.0 i6 is that has been able to not only keep pace with the competition but it has stayed well ahead up until recently. This isn't because it is a old design but because it has not been developed any further. Whats great about it is that they didn't through out the baby with the bath water, and build a whole new engine every 10years, it has been refined bit by bit. If tractors peformed like the i6, get me a Massey ferguson

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by drew`SEVNT5

I think, as an engine to drive (and not just **** over numbers in a brochure) it is decidedly average, but honest in a tractor-style way.

How can someone that owns a Turbo XR6 say it is an "decidedly average" drive???

[Jim5_0]

I challenge anyone to find any modern day or any for that matter Ford V6 that can reliably travel 500,000km with nothing more than regular oil and filter changes and the odd gasket or thermostat replacement.

You won't because they simply don't exist & will probably never exist until Ford headquarters wake up and decide that IF they want anything that reliable they would have to get Ford Australia to design it.

If that happened then Ford Australia would probably use as many parts out of the current inline 6 as they possibly could.

Don't expoder V6's have expensive cam chain tensioner issues on a regular basis?

There is a reason why the Teritory has a diesel engine and that same diesel engine is not found in the Falcon.

For some reason Ford Australia don't want that to happen and refuse to say why. They don't want taxis that need engine replacements under warranty would be my guess. I have never seen a Territory taxi.

[EgoFG]

Plus 1 Jimmy 50

[KuRT12]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

He ain't man enough to be her.


You just shot down your own argument. A V6 NEEDS d.i. to come close, but is still lower. FYI the current 4.0 has OVER 100Nm/litre, WITHOUT d.i.

Am i missing something? the Falcon makes 391nm of torque and and the engine size is 3.98L

That makes about 98nm/L

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Jim5_0

For some reason Ford Australia don't want that to happen and refuse to say why. They don't want taxis that need engine replacements under warranty would be my guess. I have never seen a Territory taxi.

Diesel engines are a hell of a lot more durable than a petrol engine, except the problem with the modern ones is stupid crap like particulate filters for emission regulations, which need replacement at X amount of kilometers, or need a special fluid, creates problems with city drivers doing short trips because it doesnt get hot enough to burn off all the soot and clogs up.

I've seen a few Territory Taxi's, lots of Prius, a Civic Hybrid (serviced one before), Falcons, a VE Caprice.

Plus don't most taxi operators pick up second hand vehicles from auctions?

[MAD]

Originally Posted by KuRT12

Am i missing something? the Falcon makes 391nm of torque and and the engine size is 3.98L

That makes about 98nm/L

That's on 91. Run it on 98 and you get a loveley 420Nm (or 105.5Nm/l)

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by KuRT12

Am i missing something? the Falcon makes 391nm of torque and and the engine size is 3.98L

That makes about 98nm/L

The LPi one is over the 400nm mark, same as the petrol version on 95ron petrol.

[KuRT12]

Originally Posted by vztrt

The LPi one is over the 400nm mark, same as the petrol version on 95ron petrol.

Yeah but the engine isnt rated at 100nm/L

So you can say oh if you do this that and the other its 400nm!

its like saying if i run E85 on the SS it runs about 30kw higher?

not comparing apples with apples

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by KuRT12

Yeah but the engine isnt rated at 100nm/L

So you can say oh if you do this that and the other its 400nm!

its like saying if i run E85 on the SS it runs about 30kw higher?

not comparing apples with apples

Petrol isn't, LPG is......better?

[MAD]

Originally Posted by KuRT12

Yeah but the engine isnt rated at 100nm/L

So you can say oh if you do this that and the other its 400nm!

its like saying if i run E85 on the SS it runs about 30kw higher?

not comparing apples with apples

Subaru specify 95 minimum in mum's outback, but in the glove box manual it says you can run 91 it just wont perform as well.

All Ford need to do is stipulate 95 as a minimum then it's over 400.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

He ain't man enough to be her.


You just shot down your own argument. A V6 NEEDS d.i. to come close, but is still lower. FYI the current 4.0 has OVER 100Nm/litre, WITHOUT d.i.

Three Ford V6 engines with PFI:
Fusion: Duratec 3.0 - 240 hp/223 lb ft... that's 301 nm or 100.35 mn/litre
Explorer: Duratec 3.5 - 283 hp/252 lb ft... that's 340.2 nm or 113.4 mn/litre
Mustang: Duratec 3.7 - 305 hp/280 lb ft... that's 378 nm or 126 mn/litre


All of those figures are achieved on 87 Pump ocatane number = 91 RON petrol.
You can see that the oldest engine the 3.0 equals the torque Of Holden's SIDI thing
and has the same nm/litre as the Falcon's 4.0 but the new 3.7 V6 is a runaway winner...

Imagine a Falcon with just as much torque but 50 more horsepower and another usable 700 rpm,
Holden's SV6 SIDI V6 engine suddenly looks very ordinary against the Ford V6 with PFI...

[Joe5619]

Why does everyone keep going on about Duratec engines? By the year 2015 won't Ecobooast engines be the standard thing in Ford cars around the world??

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

Why does everyone keep going on about Duratec engines? By the year 2015 won't Ecobooast engines be the standard thing in Ford cars around the world??

No, not standard, they're a premium engine and will carry a premium price. Ford's objective is to have Ecoboost motors available in every model around the world, not standard fitment. The Duratecs will be standard (if RWD continues)

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

Why does everyone keep going on about Duratec engines?

Because they are that good even with port injection, so just imagine what they would be like with DI,
Duratec V6 is next generation on GM SIDI V6 and it shows...

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Three Ford V6 engines with PFI:
Fusion: Duratec 3.0 - 240 hp/223 lb ft... that's 301 nm or 100.35 mn/litre
Explorer: Duratec 3.5 - 283 hp/252 lb ft... that's 340.2 nm or 113.4 mn/litre
Mustang: Duratec 3.7 - 305 hp/280 lb ft... that's 378 nm or 126 mn/litre

.

'Awwwwww,,,,,Ffffff bloody rum and Excel don't go together..

I'll try that again

Fusion: Duratec 3.0 - 240 hp/223 lb ft... that's 301 nm or 100.35 mn/litre
Explorer: Duratec 3.5 - 283 hp/252 lb ft... that's 340.2 nm or 98.6 mn/litre
Mustang: Duratec 3.7 - 305 hp/280 lb ft... that's 378 nm or 102.1mn/litre

So the 4.0 does pretty well on nm/litre but falls away on horsepower and compact packaging,
a V6 can go into FWD or RWD and that's where the Falcon has a saving grace,
F150/mustang will continue to bank roll RWD engines for a next gen RWD Falcon

Now, back to rum and footy....

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by jpd80

'Awwwwww,,,,,Ffffff bloody rum and Excel don't go together..

I'll try that again

Fusion: Duratec 3.0 - 240 hp/223 lb ft... that's 301 nm or 100.35 mn/litre
Explorer: Duratec 3.5 - 283 hp/252 lb ft... that's 340.2 nm or 98.6 mn/litre
Mustang: Duratec 3.7 - 305 hp/280 lb ft... that's 378 nm or 102.1mn/litre

So the 4.0 does pretty well on nm/litre but falls away on horsepower and compact packaging,
a V6 can go into FWD or RWD and that's where the Falcon has a saving grace,
F150/mustang will continue to bank roll RWD engines for a next gen RWD Falcon

Now, back to rum and footy....

Okay, how about some non-Ford motors .
It does very well, doesn't it. The argument isn't about packaging or weight, you know that. Regardless of what the article says I'm not holding my breath. The argument is about a certain so and so who keeps putting the 4.0 down. You just can't do that. Then we get the wannabe Drive scribe who goes even further although he drives one.

The V6 motors you've used in this example don't even have direct injection and still outmuscle the overseas sisi 3.6 litre motors that are supposed to be the be all and end all of the 6cyl world. They (the sisi's) can't even match old grandpa's axe for efficiency.

They're not only rough and course, but they're peaky and thus not suited to the heavy Zeta like Barra is the the Falcon.

No one should be fooled into thinking that more (a lot more) power can't be squeezed out of the 4.0. The fact is, it just doesn't NEED that extra power, so why should it have more power? You want more performance that's why the turbo's there.

If the Duratec motors had any sisiness to them I would have said the timing for 2016 would have been timely or appropriate as the Falcon would have shed weight going on to that platform, but thankfully, they (the Duratecs, or to be more precise, Ford) know how to get torque out of their motors.

With large family cars you can't make the mistake of using a mismatched, gutless motor that like to rev. The 3.0 VE proves this as it can't return better figures in the real world than the FG.

[kpcart]

this 100nm/L talk is nonsense. even small capaciy bmw 2.5l sixes make 250nm = 100nm/L
even some 4 cylinder 2 litre cars are around that figure.

diesels in natually aspriated form can do it with ease, and then add turbo like most modern diesels you have numbers like this:

--1.9 four cylinder turbo diesel in a 2007 merc C class has 400nm, THAT IS OVER 200nm/L !!!!
From an engine half the size of a falcon engine!! (and is uses less then 7l/100km fuel in a car weighing not much less the falcon)

An engine like that makes the falcon i6 look like an even bigger dinosaur, even the "turbo" I6 engines have nothing compared to the small european turbo diesels in "Torque/Litre" and fuel efficiency.

Ofcourse i am looking at the figures in a subjective way, but imagine a turbo diesel v6 in a falcon. say a cheap euro TD diesel, not like something from a merc, and it would still make at least 160nm-plus/Litre, AND have more torque overall then an I6 AND have much MUCH better fuel economy, AND the engine would be more compact.

Saying all this, i am not a hater of I6 engines, i really like them, i have had several i6s, and on lpg, and my girlfriends 2004 BA, i have found to be one of the best cars i have driven, and the engine drivability so smooth and effortless. i am only commenting on what i think Ford needs to do to go forward, and for them to sell more falcons. i think they need either a Direct injection v6 of about 3.5l capacity or a turbo diesel v6.

[kpcart]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

With large family cars you can't make the mistake of using a mismatched, gutless motor that like to rev. The 3.0 VE proves this as it can't return better figures in the real world than the FG.

You are totally wrong there, the 3.0 VE can return better figures then the FG easily, but people in australia are lead foots from the light, it is a drag race for all of them, that is when the 3.0VE uses more fuel then needed, in acceleration as it is accelerating a heavy car.
for relaxed drivers it actually does achieve the desired results.

AND also people wrongly compare the 3.0VE real world figures to the FG "official" figures, please compare them to the "real world" figures of the FG. Practicly every car in australia has a lower official figure then what you call "real world" figure, as most aussies drive too hard from acceleration then what is needed as they all think they are in some sort of race, it really is a weird culture here, a lot of drivers only relex when they are infront of the other 12 cars on the road with them.

The official figures released for fuel consumption i find are better to go by then "car enthusiats" in car forums who usually drive harder then the general population, because they need to prove their car to others on the street (not that anyone else is watching them).

[KuRT12]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Petrol isn't, LPG is......better?

No because... your not comparing apples with apples... like my previous post stated.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by kpcart

this 100nm/L talk is nonsense. even small capaciy bmw 2.5l sixes make 250nm = 100nm/L
even some 4 cylinder 2 litre cars are around that figure.

It's a measure of efficiency as well as drivability; being a fan of the sisi motors it's not hard to tell you have no idea about these two aspects.

BMW, you say? As you might know, they can build highly efficient engines, and from that example you can see why the 4.0 is as great as it is. You've just proved my point

Originally Posted by kpcart

diesels in natually aspriated form can do it with ease, and then add turbo like most modern diesels you have numbers like this:

Name them.

Originally Posted by kpcart

--1.9 four cylinder turbo diesel in a 2007 merc C class has 400nm, THAT IS OVER 200nm/L !!!!
From an engine half the size of a falcon engine!! (and is uses less then 7l/100km fuel in a car weighing not much less the falcon)

That's special but no surprise being a turbo diesel and that Mercedes are at the leading edge of technology. Funny how you need to use two of the greatest automobile innovators as examples that are equal or better than the 4.0.

The whole argument is about you suggesting the V6 is superior for the Falcon but in practical terms it isn't due to the fact it fits, and does a great job.

Originally Posted by kpcart

An engine like that makes the falcon i6 look like an even bigger dinosaur, even the "turbo" I6 engines have nothing compared to the small european turbo diesels in "Torque/Litre" and fuel efficiency.

Again. You're talking diesel and turbo. The funny thing is I'd rather the XR6T turbo because for the space of the FG and the speed and power of this car, as well as the decent economy, it's far ahead of anything. Period. There's nothing that comes close anywhere when the main aim is to have power at a price. If cost of running is more important there's the LPi. Those lovely small diesels are great, it's pity Holden are even further behind Ford.

Originally Posted by kpcart

Ofcourse i am looking at the figures in a subjective way, but imagine a turbo diesel v6 in a falcon. say a cheap euro TD diesel, not like something from a merc, and it would still make at least 160nm-plus/Litre, AND have more torque overall then an I6 AND have much MUCH better fuel economy, AND the engine would be more compact.

Three letters. LPi. It has very decent torque, and more power than any prospective diesel could ever come close too.

Originally Posted by kpcart

Saying all this, i am not a hater of I6 engines, i really like them, i have had several i6s, and on lpg, and my girlfriends 2004 BA, i have found to be one of the best cars i have driven, and the engine drivability so smooth and effortless. i am only commenting on what i think Ford needs to do to go forward, and for them to sell more falcons. i think they need either a Direct injection v6 of about 3.5l capacity or a turbo diesel v6.

So smooth you reckon. You mean like a dinosaur; at every opportunity you can ridicule them but somehow the truth comes out and you tell us how great it is. Proven yourself wrong.

Originally Posted by kpcart

You are totally wrong there, the 3.0 VE can return better figures then the FG easily, but people in australia are lead foots from the light, it is a drag race for all of them, that is when the 3.0VE uses more fuel then needed, in acceleration as it is accelerating a heavy car.
for relaxed drivers it actually does achieve the desired results.

Do you know why they're heavy-footed? It's because for the size of the car the 3.0 is undersized, and it's also gutless as it is. Even with direct injection it doesn't provide proper torque like it should it. It's a sales success because in Aus we have more sheep than NZ.

Originally Posted by kpcart

AND also people wrongly compare the 3.0VE real world figures to the FG "official" figures, please compare them to the "real world" figures of the FG. Practicly every car in australia has a lower official figure then what you call "real world" figure, as most aussies drive too hard from acceleration then what is needed as they all think they are in some sort of race, it really is a weird culture here, a lot of drivers only relex when they are infront of the other 12 cars on the road with them.

Maybe you forgot the epic 1000km test that was done in the real world. The sisi got crapped on, in ALL aspects. It's best you stopped making stuff up.

[drew`SEVNT5]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

How can someone that owns a Turbo XR6 say it is an "decidedly average" drive???

My BA2 XR6T when stock was dead boring. My mums BA XT 182kw was yawn inducing, and sounded shithouse at the same time.

It was only when I tuned my XR6T that it became exciting. Even then, it wore off, and the taxicab roots shone through massively.

FG Turbos are a different kettle of fish, but FG N/A I6 falls in the the category of 'decidedly average'

[delete94]

Originally Posted by kpcart

You are totally wrong there, the 3.0 VE can return better figures then the FG easily, but people in australia are lead foots from the light, it is a drag race for all of them, that is when the 3.0VE uses more fuel then needed, in acceleration as it is accelerating a heavy car.
for relaxed drivers it actually does achieve the desired results.

Actually, he’s not wrong. Low down torque is much more important in getting a big car moving than higher revving peaky engines. Also, if what you’re saying is true, then using your own logic, it stands to reason that the drivers in their FG’s are also lead footing it off the lights and that the I6 also has to accelerate a heavy car. This makes the VE 3.0 figures look even more woeful.

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by drew`SEVNT5

My BA2 XR6T when stock was dead boring.

Mate, I own an FG XR6T & if you are telling me your XR6T as stock was dead boring, your just asking for too much!! You're just being silly now, to prove a point!!

[mrbaxr6t]

I cannot believe you guys are poo pooing on this engine its only drawbacks are
(according to me)

1. cannot be mated to a front wheel drive arrangement (due to length)
2. all other options (besides falcon) where it could be slotted already have very good engines in them

the engine itself is fantastic bucketloads of torque and when turboed massive potential is there for economy and power. It is also tough as hell it takes some hardcore misuse/abuse/neglect to break it. and also if a straight six is such a poo of an idea then why do BMW use straight six engines in their Z4? that car can be used to see what can be done with straight six with its bimetal twin cast block the engine is LIGHT even when compared to a v6 of comparable capacity, FOA don't have the r&d dollars to develop the barra inline 4 to this standard but my god I wish they could. the I6 Z4 is a fantastic car, I like them alot but sadly I lack the financial capacity and I need to lug children. I would love to own one. I6 has bucketloads of potential in a rear driver (possibly AW Driver) only