Aluminium bodies for Australian made cars.

Resurrection · 31-07-2012, 09:18 PM

One of the biggest problems with the Falcon is the kerb weight. My FG gets great economy crusing on the open road but is penalised in traffic when the engine needs to constantly accelerate 1,800+kg (car + driver + tank of fuel). Why haven't Ford and Holden introduced more aluminium into their bodies? Audi have been doing this for more than a decade so it is not new. I understand there is a cost penalty but it can it be that significant? If the Falcon could lose 200kg (and introduce stop-start technology), it would greatly improve the economy of this car in city traffic. Australian has a lot of aluminium so sourcing the raw material should not be a problem.

Nikked · 31-07-2012, 09:25 PM

Ford are set to release an aluminium F-150, so the technology could find its was into a post-2016 falcon...

The thing is, steel is cheaper and easier to use then aluminium, so i guess that why it used. Aluminium requires different techniques to join panels an would have a huge start up cost.

**Dave R** · 31-07-2012, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikked

post-2016 falcon...

What post 2016 Falcon??

OK I'm done trolling.

I believe Holden has plans to use lots of aluminium, they have been saying it for a while. I guess we will know in ~6 months when VEII specs are released.

nstg8a · 31-07-2012, 09:54 PM

200kg is a huge amount to lose out of a modern car.

I would think the majority of the structure would have to be alloy to lose those sort of numbers.

Better of to make the 2016 falcon a bit smaller and do it that way. Still use some alloy but keep it minimal to control costs.

Make it 15% smaller, and keep the max weight circa 1650kg.

Then you don't need a 350kw fuel guzzling V8 to get awesome performance, which leads to big economy gains.

And kill the the falcon nameplate. It attracts too much stigma to ever recover from now. Let it r.i.p

Maybe fusion, maybe some other name.

Fresh new start.

Nikked · 31-07-2012, 09:59 PM

The more weight is cut, the more is added.

Having said that, if cars were built like they were 50 years ago, they would probably weigh 2400kg...

Blame all the nifty gadgets and saftey features...

jpd80 · 31-07-2012, 10:16 PM

It's the way we look at the design, you don't start with a heavy car and try to lighten it.
As an example, when Ford NA needed a midsized car to replace the contour (CDW27 Mondeo),
they turned to the Mazda 6 platform, lengthened and wisened it with out significant weight increase.
So too, Ford could take the CD4 Fusion/Mondeo, lengthen and widen it to produce a new Taurus that
probably weighs slightly heavier than a Mondeo., A V6 version would probably weigh less than E'boost Falcon.
Imagine that, a large car with 3.5 V6 getting low 8.x l/100 km and similar performance to the good ol' 4.0 I-6..

mik · 31-07-2012, 10:32 PM

i think ford oz has been chipping away at weight over the years, plastic manifold on the 6 cylander, some other suspension parts i think, very hard to make drive line upgrades, eco lpi,eco boost, super charged fpv, add safety gear, model upgrade and make massively lighter too while on a budget in tuff times.

blueluvr · 31-07-2012, 10:35 PM

just wait a few years, the rust will have taken away a couple hundred kilos!

**SSD-85** · 31-07-2012, 10:42 PM

I think aluminum panels would be a good start. But lets face it, the locals wont be around long enough to justify such an investment.

XR Martin · 31-07-2012, 10:44 PM

Ecoboost G6 weighs about the same as a 528 (1644kg vs 1620kg), so I dont think the Falcon is that porky. And in the latest Wheels mag they get similar economy, yet the Ford is quicker. (14.5 vs 15.4)

nstg8a · 31-07-2012, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Ecoboost G6 weighs about the same as a 528 (1644kg vs 1620kg), so I dont think the Falcon is that porky. And in the latest Wheels mag they get similar economy, yet the Ford is quicker. (14.5 vs 15.4)

Lol problem is there is only about 12 eb g6's in the wild, cos other than ford workers and forum members no one else knows the bloody things exist.

6 cylinder and more up spec models are porky indeed. I should really chuck my XR8 on the scales to see what it weighs. I have little faith in official figures.

Road_Warrior · 31-07-2012, 10:58 PM

1600-odd kg is not heavy for a modern car. All those gadgets, safety features and the like all add to the bottom line (of kerb weight). Plus all the structural areas of a car that make cars like the FG top performers in crash tests. People want all this stuff, but it comes at a price.

An aluminium bonnet could be used like on the new Explorer, and a plastic boot floor as well. The new seat frame technology developed by an Australian supplier would negate the need for metal seat frames so there's another weight saving, and moving from the iron block I6 to a corporate V6 engine would save bulk kilos.

JG34JA · 31-07-2012, 10:59 PM

Reading about the engineering that they went through to lose 50+kg for the XD model is interesting - it was a lot of work! Not only was the body size reduced, there was a (for the time) radical use of plastics, eventually an alloy head, retuning for the 3.3L and completely different gearing.

By the way, it worked, Falcon chewed less than Commodore and within a couple of years the craze for big 4cyl cars reversed and Falcon dominated the 1980's.

SteveJH · 31-07-2012, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nstg8a

Lol problem is there is only about 12 eb g6's in the wild, cos other than ford workers and forum members no one else knows the bloody things exist.

6 cylinder and more up spec models are porky indeed. I should really chuck my XR8 on the scales to see what it weighs. I have little faith in official figures.

I saw one parked in a residential area in coffs harbour last week. Either that or an EcoLPI.

**Polyal** · 31-07-2012, 11:05 PM

Ok so the thing that most people want is the most expensive as far as automotive costs are concerned.

1. Sheet metal changes
2. Weight loss

I cant recall the $$/kg but its very very large. Sorry to be the wet blanket but unless you globalise your car the costs just dont work out..your better off spending the cash on gizmo's and multiple geared 'boxes..atleast they did one of those.

At the end of the day they are large sedans, and if we want to be fair (even though its not) we should be targeting world class full size sedans like the 5 and E Class in terms of weight goals...is the Falcon far off compared to them?

Kryton · 31-07-2012, 11:05 PM

Dont forget there is a couple of Km's of wiring in each Falcon too, just to run all the things we take for granted.

SteveJH · 31-07-2012, 11:06 PM

Forgetting factory here for a sec.

How much weight would an XR6T or FPV lose with light weight wheels, and with front quarters, bonnet and boot replaced with Carbon?

For a factory solution, how much less would aluminium weigh if it has the same amount of structural strength?

**Polyal** · 31-07-2012, 11:08 PM

Carbon is really a no go...to dangerous for crash although I do note some super cars etc do use it. Mind you they are generally $500k+ cars.

SteveJH · 31-07-2012, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polyal

Carbon is really a no go...to dangerous for crash although I do note some super cars etc do use it. Mind you they are generally $500k+ cars.

It shatters? What exactly is the drama?

nstg8a · 31-07-2012, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG34JA

Reading about the engineering that they went through to lose 50+kg for the XD model is interesting - it was a lot of work! Not only was the body size reduced, there was a (for the time) radical use of plastics, eventually an alloy head, retuning for the 3.3L and completely different gearing.

By the way, it worked, Falcon chewed less than Commodore and within a couple of years the craze for big 4cyl cars reversed and Falcon dominated the 1980's.

Just swapping the cast head for an alloy one is nearly 30kg from memory.

Xd didn't really look it but was quite advanced tech wise. Seems laughable when you look at the primitive old coon's now.

mik · 31-07-2012, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG34JA

Reading about the engineering that they went through to lose 50+kg for the XD model is interesting - it was a lot of work! Not only was the body size reduced, there was a (for the time) radical use of plastics, eventually an alloy head, retuning for the 3.3L and completely different gearing.

By the way, it worked, Falcon chewed less than Commodore and within a couple of years the craze for big 4cyl cars reversed and Falcon dominated the 1980's.

don`t forget the plastic fuel tank.

Nikked · 31-07-2012, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polyal

Carbon is really a no go...to dangerous for crash although I do note some super cars etc do use it. Mind you they are generally $500k+ cars.

Carbon being dangerous in a crash is a misconception, the panels can be made to flex and aborb impact...

Warning, expensive cars crashed!!!

3.30 mark...Pagani Huayra crash test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=VNuiDEoRgqs

Mclaren F1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=mUPq760LC00

Alot of the talkbout carbon shattering is due to the cheap CF hoods that you see on cars, that are bassically Fiberglass hoods with a thin layer of CF and heaps of brittle resin.

The stuff found in production cars uses less resin, and better forming. Instead of tearing and splintering into sharp bits, the panels warp and absorb energy. In higher impacts, the panels break of in pre determined areas (just like metals), and any bits broken off usually have a frayed edge.

TC200six · 31-07-2012, 11:50 PM

Jaguar has been using aluminium bodies for their cars for years

**Polyal** · 31-07-2012, 11:52 PM

Thats just my point.

Carbon does shatter unless you put more into the mix, so not only is carbon expensive (to mass manufacture, not hand built stuff which could possible be subject to different regulations) then you add more cost via impurities.

There is a good reason why the big manufacturers dont do it in decent numbers.

Uncle Niceguy · 31-07-2012, 11:56 PM

with regards to materials like carbon fibre and the like the cheaper and better option in that regard is to use a hybrid of both Carbon and Kevlar fibre, that way there would be less shatter on impact thanks to the kevlar and also lighter as Kevlar doesn't weigh as much as Carbon but the main issue with both these materials you will find is the recycling ability as they aren't the most nature friendly materials and also being able to manufacture this on the scale required would cost an absolute bucket load of cash....

hence why its never used on a large scale.

**Polyal** · 01-08-2012, 12:02 AM

Plus the process is a PIA.

Nikked · 01-08-2012, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polyal

Thats just my point.

Carbon does shatter unless you put more into the mix, so not only is carbon expensive (to mass manufacture, not hand built stuff which could possible be subject to different regulations) then you add more cost via impurities.

There is a good reason why the big manufacturers dont do it in decent numbers.

BMW are working on a new car with a carbon frame...

One of the more "common" (releitvly lol...there is 2 in town) cars to use CF is the M6, it uses CF bumpers, roof and some sub-frame parts. The Corvette uses CF fenders aswell...

Here is an interesting artical about ford's investment into CF.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8FC09R20120412

aussie muscle · 01-08-2012, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nstg8a

And kill the the falcon nameplate. It attracts too much stigma to ever recover from now. Let it r.i.p

But Falcon is the world's oldest continuous running nameplate. if ford give that up, it goes to the 911 (porsche).
i'd keep the falcon name, even if it's on a taurus.

As to the topic of car weight, my BF ute xr8 is 2000 kg.

madmelon · 01-08-2012, 10:01 AM

Jaguar used an aluminium chassis and body on the X350 XJ series- it knocked a good 200kg or more off the kerb mass, bringing it down to ~1660kg for the base model diesel. Guess what they did with the next (current) series, X351? All that weight came back, despite the aluminium chassis and body. It's back to 1796kg. This is what happens when the people come to expect all the latest gadgets fitted to every car. The same goes for every other car on the road.

2011G6E · 01-08-2012, 10:24 AM

Oh where do I start...?

Aluminium bodies are wonderful...but they make crash worthiness a nightmare. Not only that, but the bodies are very expensive to make, hard to repair, the Carbon Tax would hammer the costs even worse than it will with steel bodies, etc.

Wonderful idea...but as long as you are prepared to pay maybe a third more for your family car, go for it...

I look at our FG G6E and wonder where the 1800+kg has gone...especially when our XC Fairmont GXL six cylinder weighed about 1400kg and was weighed down with steel bumpers thick steel panels...