New Ecoboost 3.5L Twin Turbo Engines, Future of Falcon

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Spark plugs are easier than you think because they're in between cams and the valves have hydraulic lash adjusters.

IIRC, Spark plugs have direct coils and are 160,000 km life rated..

Its still in an awkward spot, the strut brace would have to come off too, having done transverse V engines before, its a massive PITA and you basically have to do it by feel.

With HLA's they still recommend that valve clearances are checked, its usually once every 120,000km or thereabouts.

Its like when people bring in 380s with missfiring issues and they say the spark plugs where replaced in the last service so they can't be the issue, yeah right buddy , there is a reason those are iridiums and you just payed for something which wasn't done.

When something like that comes back into a dealership, the service manager has $$$ signs in their eyes and all the mechanics suddenly have to go to the toilet .

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Ok, you got me with the 4V FWD version, never knew they did that, but it doesn't change the fact the Coyote was never designed for FWD applications. And it also doesn't change the fact that Ford no longer do FWD V8's anymore, the Ecoboost V6 has replaced them, hence Ford had no reason to make the Coyote FWD compatible.

You can see from the pic that packaging a FWD V8 looks like a nightmare compared to a north/south application.

My point was only that they COULD if they wanted to, which as you rightly point out they don't. There is no V8 Taurus and no V8 Explorer, so the chances of them doing a special just for Aus are Buckley's. Apart from the usual speculation on forums, there was I think a total of one obscure newspaper article speculating on it.

Our best hope is that Fat American Cops decider the Interceptor needs two more cylinders.

[jpd80]

A north South FWD/AWD set up is still possible if Ford wanted to emulate Audi...

[4.0i OHC]

Originally Posted by jpd80

A north South FWD/AWD set up is still possible if Ford wanted to emulate Audi...

I have never understood why Audi persist with that setup. If you're going to mount the motor longitudinally, why not just make the car RWD?

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by 4.0i OHC

I have never understood why Audi persist with that setup. If you're going to mount the motor longitudinally, why not just make the car RWD?

Because a GTR wouldnt be a GTR without AWD.

[4.0i OHC]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Because a GTR wouldnt be a GTR without AWD.

I was referencing the FWD longitudinal setup that most Audis possess. Why not go for RWD/AWD if the motor is mounted longitudinally?

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by 4.0i OHC

I was referencing the FWD longitudinal setup that most Audis possess. Why not go for RWD/AWD if the motor is mounted longitudinally?

The idea is so the engine can be pushed further back. A FWD transverse sits at or infront of the front axle

[4.0i OHC]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

The idea is so the engine can be pushed further back. A FWD transverse sits at or infront of the front axle

This seems to be the philosophy behind the BMW range (as a result, most BMWs are exceptionally well balanced). However, why not go for longitudinal RWD over longitudinal FWD if FWD's main advantage (interior space) is negated?

[outback_ute]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

The idea is so the engine can be pushed further back. A FWD transverse sits at or infront of the front axle

Audi longitudinal engines are entirely ahead of the axle, CoG would be further forward than a typical transverse engine I'd guess (especially the inline 5cyl's or V10). The most recent change has been to swap the location of the diff & torque converter or clutch to move the engine back relative to the axle, but the diff is still behind the back of the block.

[AG3]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

Audi longitudinal engines are entirely ahead of the axle, CoG would be further forward than a typical transverse engine I'd guess (especially the inline 5cyl's or V10). The most recent change has been to swap the location of the diff & torque converter or clutch to move the engine back relative to the axle, but the diff is still behind the back of the block.

image

Yes, Audi was able to move the engine back/ front wheels forward by moving the front differential in front of the clutch.
I think that 4 inches makes a big difference.
The Audi A5 V6 for example has a good 52:48 weight distribution. Not long ago Audis used to carry about 60% of its weight on the front. Now they're getting closer to BMW's 50:50 weight distribution.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by AG3

Yes, Audi was able to move the engine back/ front wheels forward by moving the front differential in front of the clutch.
I think that 4 inches makes a big difference.
The Audi A5 V6 for example has a good 52:48 weight distribution. Not long ago Audis used to carry about 60% of its weight on the front. Now they're getting closer to BMW's 50:50 weight distribution.

I wouldn't get too carried away on weight distribution too much, the actual weight over the front wheels
is much more important than the front to back measurement, as an example:

1600 Kg AWD 52/48..........Front: 780 Kg Rear: 720 Kg
100 Kg FWD 56/42..........Front: 784 Kg Rear: 616 Kg

By removing 94 Kg from the rear in regards powered rear axle, the
weight bias is changed even though front weight remains similar...

[AG3]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I wouldn't get too carried away on weight distribution too much, the actual weight over the front wheels
is much more important than the front to back measurement, as an example:

1600 Kg AWD 52/48..........Front: 780 Kg Rear: 720 Kg
100 Kg FWD 56/42..........Front: 784 Kg Rear: 616 Kg

By removing 94 Kg from the rear in regards powered rear axle, the
weight bias is changed even though front weight remains similar...

Still a big improvement over the 1996 FWD A4 2.8 V6 (tested by Road & Track) which had a weight distribution of 62/38!

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by AG3

Still a big improvement over the 1996 FWD A4 2.8 V6 (tested by Road & Track) which had a weight distribution of 62/38!

Drat, I meant to type 1400 kg for the FWD above but yeah , most FWDs tend to be 60/40 weight distribution.
Still, the 1640 Kg Ecoboost Falcon with 50/50 weight distribution probably has similar weight over the front wheels..

[outback_ute]

jpd80 - you're missing 100kg from both those examples (780+720=1500)

AG3 - yes that's pretty good for the V6, but the RS5 is 58% front, while the RS6 sedan is 60.8% front/39.2% rear.

Anyway this is a bit academic as soon as you add passengers in the back seat! I could never understand BMW boasting about 50:50 in a 7-seat SUV for example.

[Buntz]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Drat, I meant to type 1400 kg for the FWD above but yeah , most FWDs tend to be 60/40 weight distribution.
Still, the 1640 Kg Ecoboost Falcon with 50/50 weight distribution probably has similar weight over the front wheels..

The heaviest Mondeo of the current range is 1611kg.

No matter how many cases FNA can make against Falcon. There are so many for the Falcon.

The whole FWD packages are more efficient, and cost effective, are just excuses of lazy, beige, mass market manufacturer's.

[Buntz]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

jpd80 - you're missing 100kg from both those examples (780+720=1500)

AG3 - yes that's pretty good for the V6, but the RS5 is 58% front, while the RS6 sedan is 60.8% front/39.2% rear.

Anyway this is a bit academic as soon as you add passengers in the back seat! I could never understand BMW boasting about 50:50 in a 7-seat SUV for example.

Preston Tucker could boast 50:50 in his rear engine 48. Which was a four door saloon.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

The heaviest Mondeo of the current range is 1611kg.

No matter how many cases FNA can make against Falcon. There are so many for the Falcon.

The whole FWD packages are more efficient, and cost effective, are just excuses of lazy, beige, mass market manufacturer's.

A better way is to say that there's only 80 Kg difference between an EB Mondeo and an EB Falcon
If the Falcon's shell was made the same size as a mondeo, the difference might be even less.. maybe 20-40 Kg...

And a Falcon that size/weight would be able to use an EB 1.6 like Mondeo and get 7.0 l/100 km...
I think that's a seriously good plan, especially if the vehicle supports engines from 1.6 EB to 5.0 V8..
There's gottsa be a way to lose some weight, gain economy with I-4s and still have great performance..

[Buntz]

Originally Posted by jpd80

A better way is to say that there's only 80 Kg difference between an EB Mondeo and an EB Falcon
If the Falcon's shell was made the same size as a mondeo, the difference might be even less.. maybe 20-40 Kg...

And a Falcon that size/weight would be able to use an EB 1.6 like Mondeo and get 7.0 l/100 km...
I think that's a seriously good plan, especially if the vehicle supports engines from 1.6 EB to 5.0 V8..
There's gottsa be a way to lose some weight, gain economy with I-4s and still have great performance..

It just doesn't get the same budget. If it did. FoA could build an epic vehicle.

How much is going into making Transit in America? 1.2 billion or there abouts. For a car that's already designed. That's 700 million more than the bill for FG... which included any new tooling.

The Swiss army knife of Ford may be for the chop. Or Ford could be making silent, just to get back at the Australian Media.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

It just doesn't get the same budget. If it did. FoA could build an epic vehicle.

How much is going into making Transit in America? 1.2 billion or there abouts. For a car that's already designed. That's 700 million more than the bill for FG... which included any new tooling.

The Swiss army knife of Ford may be for the chop. Or Ford could be making silent, just to get back at the Australian Media.

Where did you get the figure of $1.2 Billion?
I know that Ford is reconfiguring the old Ranger plant to build transit including its integral frame,
being able to build the frame in house will save big bucks over the E150 - E250 box frame built by magna.

Other changes to the medium duty Transit include provisioning for 3.7 V6 RWD and Ecoboost V6
as well as upgrades to frame and suspension to to improve tow rating and durability. replacement

[Buntz]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Where did you get the figure of $1.2 Billion?
I know that Ford is reconfiguring the old Ranger plant to build transit including its integral frame,
being able to build the frame in house will save big bucks over the E150 - E250 box frame built by magna.

Other changes to the medium duty Transit include provisioning for 3.7 V6 RWD and Ecoboost V6
as well as upgrades to frame and suspension to to improve tow rating and durability. replacement

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...5&postcount=11

It's going towards a plant expansion with tooling, and whatever it's going to cost to run the V6's in it. Which won't be anywhere but the U.S.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by jpd80

A better way is to say that there's only 80 Kg difference between an EB Mondeo and an EB Falcon
If the Falcon's shell was made the same size as a mondeo, the difference might be even less.. maybe 20-40 Kg...

And a Falcon that size/weight would be able to use an EB 1.6 like Mondeo and get 7.0 l/100 km...
I think that's a seriously good plan, especially if the vehicle supports engines from 1.6 EB to 5.0 V8..
There's gottsa be a way to lose some weight, gain economy with I-4s and still have great performance..

Ford have said that large cars make up 10% of the global market, yet they seem like they are willing to let this segment slip and not even bother with it. Maybe make Mondeo the biggest car they sell, or stretch it a bit for Taurus.

Seems ludicrous that they don't have a global RWD car to suit this market, because 10% of the global market is still a pretty massive amount of potential sales. Problem is they would need to tap the Chinese market with it, and with the massive barriers the Chinese put in place its impossible for Falcon or a derivitive. The only way to sell Falcon or a derivitive in China would be to follow the Chinese rules and build it there in one of Fords joint venture companies, as if you want to assemble in China it is a rule that it has to be a joint venture with a Chinese company isn't it.

The government should do the same here, either assemble your cars here, sell Australian products overseas to the value of the cars they sell here like they do in Brazil, or cop a 35% tariff like they do in China.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...5&postcount=11

It's going towards a plant expansion with tooling, and whatever it's going to cost to run the V6's in it. Which won't be anywhere but the U.S.

Um, that isn't quite true KSAP is a siamesed plant and runs F trucks down one side and soon to be Transits down the other.
The money is to upgrade both sides....

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Ford have said that large cars make up 10% of the global market, yet they seem like they are willing to let this segment slip and not even bother with it. Maybe make Mondeo the biggest car they sell, or stretch it a bit for Taurus.

The problem here is that buyers are not even looking at Falcon, either poor marketing is to blame or people just don't want it anymore.
Either way, Ford needs to seriously question every decision they make from here on in, saving money is important but equally,
fostering and developing a product that has a great chance of taking hold is far more important, the right choices from here on are vital.

[Buntz]

Originally Posted by jpd80

The problem here is that buyers are not even looking at Falcon, either poor marketing is to blame or people just don't want it anymore.
Either way, Ford needs to seriously question every decision they make from here on in, saving money is important but equally,
fostering and developing a product that has a great chance of taking hold is far more important, the right choices from here on are vital.

"Don't want to be an American idiot." This song rings true when the fate of something good, is in the hands of the apathetic, and moronic.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

"Don't want to be an American idiot." This song rings true when the fate of something good, is in the hands of the apathetic, and moronic.

I know you're bitter but unless people start buying Falcon, there's not much more Ford can do...

[4.0i OHC]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Ford have said that large cars make up 10% of the global market, yet they seem like they are willing to let this segment slip and not even bother with it. Maybe make Mondeo the biggest car they sell, or stretch it a bit for Taurus.

If Ford absolutely must stop producing the Falcon, I believe that it would be best if no other large car were offered. Let the Falcon rest in peace. Importing a complete Mondeo range (complete with 2.2 TDCi, 179kW Ecoboost and manual) would be the best option in my view; in most countries the Mondeo is the largest Ford offered (it's pretty huge inside, and has absolutely no problems carting around a family of five in comfort). I would hate to see Ford's reputation (within the car enthusiast community at least) for making driver's cars to completely vanish with the arrival of a 2-tonne V6 yankmobile which wallows all over the road as Ford's Australian flagship.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

The whole FWD packages are more efficient, and cost effective, are just excuses of lazy, beige, mass market manufacturer's.

Less losses through drivetrain, no tail shaft so more room for passengers, handles better in crap conditions because more weight over the driving and steering wheels and a transverse engine setup means more leg room.

The only negative I see is bogans won't like it because they can't do fully sick burnouts bro.

OH BUT WHAT ABOUT TOWING! I hear in the back, its called a dual cab ute or SUV buddy

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by 4.0i OHC

If Ford absolutely must stop producing the Falcon, I believe that it would be best if no other large car were offered. Let the Falcon rest in peace. Importing a complete Mondeo range (complete with 2.2 TDCi, 179kW Ecoboost and manual) would be the best option in my view; in most countries the Mondeo is the largest Ford offered (it's pretty huge inside, and has absolutely no problems carting around a family of five in comfort). I would hate to see Ford's reputation (within the car enthusiast community at least) for making driver's cars to completely vanish with the arrival of a 2-tonne V6 yankmobile which wallows all over the road as Ford's Australian flagship.

Mondeo is a big car, the MA-MC was already basically as long as Falcon and wheelbase was huge. Falcon was already being talked about going smaller, and since Fusion has now taken the EUCD platform it looks like a EUCD Taurus might be wider, and not the long rumoured LWB version.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

Mondeo is a big car, the MA-MC was already basically as long as Falcon and wheelbase was huge. Falcon was already being talked about going smaller, and since Fusion has now taken the EUCD platform it looks like a EUCD Taurus might be wider, and not the long rumoured LWB version.

Fusion also has an AWD option which may help it cause with 2.0 EB the weight is about 1620 Kg and split is about 55/45 so not too bad..

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Less losses through drivetrain, no tail shaft so more room for passengers, handles better in crap conditions because more weight over the driving and steering wheels and a transverse engine setup means more leg room.

The only negative I see is bogans won't like it because they can't do fully sick burnouts bro.

OH BUT WHAT ABOUT TOWING! I hear in the back, its called a dual cab ute or SUV buddy

If anything, Ecoboost Falcon kinda says that RWD Falcon can mix it with Ecoboost Mondeo,
similar fuel economy, similar performance, more hip and shoulder room in Falcon...