Ford Australia Invests $230 Million in New Fuel-Efficient Engines for Local Vehicles

[ltd]

It'll definately be a hit with the fleets with a "4 cylinder only" policy.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by JPFS1

They're out there alright, but most will not be able to pic them. Might even be running around in unexpected bodies.

T6 Ranger mules? Although that is a diff. spec engine i suppose. Still, bit of ballast and its the same weight as a Falcon so ok for basic grunt measurement.

[olds]

Ive heard that the fuel economy isn't very good

[EDManual]

I remember seeing an ford test AU3 with intercooler for turbo around a year before the BA's came out. Was cool, and seemed to have the wheels out a little wider than other AUs. Guess it would have been scrapped sadly.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by olds

Ive heard that the fuel economy isn't very good

And where did you hear this from??

[EDManual]

I would say the 4cyl fuel economy would be shockingly bad when pushed, like on boost all the time towing, or having an enthusiastic drive through the mountains(again always on boost). That doesn't get publicity though, only the light throttle stuff does.

I had a new Audi 1.8T the other day and got 20 litres per hundred over 300km on one tank, then 18.5 on another tank. This is meant to have an average of 7.5 so the govt says and car test reports that so called push the car... got 8.5l/100!!

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...highlight=audi

I find it extremely hard to get economy anywhere near that bad in a 6 cyl non turbo falcon.

[UNR8D]

ED Manual, ive never seen a audi A4 1.8T or 2.0L use that much, not even the 3.0L V6's use that much and I have driven all 3, and had the 1.8 pegged at WOT up mt neibo on a couple of occasions and got L/100 in the 12's still, had it as low as 6.3 just cruising up to the sunny coast. Something seriously wrong with that A4.

[EDManual]

I honestly think there was nothing wrong with the car, it was pretty floored...

I was talking to a mate who drove a new v10 M6 as a company car working for BMW in the UK, having a laugh at my effort in the audi, who has had a few tanks at 40 litres per hundred!! 7-8miled a UK gallon! 500hp uses fuel!

[jpd80]

Meh, I see any EB I-4 Vs 4.0 I-6 fuel economy debate in
the same light as the XR6T Vs XR8 fuel consumption debate:
- When driven sedately, the turbo engines give better part throttle fuel economy
- When driven hard, turbo and non turbo engines use similar amounts of fuel.


If push came to shove, I'd prefer to drive a 2.0 Ecoboost Falcon over a 3.0 SIDI Commodore,
the turbo Falcon has much more low end torque and that's what really matters to most buyers...

I personally believe that a V6 Diesel Falcon would have been a far better move and one that
Ford may regret not bringing to market, diesel could change Falcon's image completely...

[olds]

Originally Posted by vztrt

And where did you hear this from??

Carn't say but heard 9.5 is all there getting

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by olds

Carn't say but heard 9.5 is all there getting

Is that in the Territ frame or Falcon frame??

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by olds

Carn't say but heard 9.5 is all there getting

yeah, 9.5 L/100km city cycle maybe..... I can't disprove what you are saying (esp givne the lack of sources....though i understand why you can't reveal them) but unless you were hearing Territory test numbers (i.e. the recently spotted I4T territory mule (which may or may not reach production) then i highly doubt the combined ADR figure would be 9.5.

Stats can be very elusive indeed...maybe you heard a real world figure for a particular test, or it could have been the the gearbox stuck in 3rd gear for all i know (yes engineers do sometimes do funny stuff like that....its all part of thorough testing).

A mondeo 2.0 EB (i4T...effectively same engine) with approx 100kg less weight (if that) than an EB FG falcon is rated at about 7.5 L/100km ADR. This is based on euro numbers (i and others have posted on this very car/drivetrain elswhere on here....can't remember exact figures). Now given that car uses a DSG box (as opposed to the ZF 6sp auto most likely in FG), and has slightly lower HP tune as well, say you added 1 L/100km to its performance (for higher falcon weight, more aggressive tune etc.). You end up with mid 8s. No way in hell will the EB Falcon be ADR rated at more than 9L/100km.....Ford wouldn;t have bothered if they couldn't do better than that.

We shall see if that statement comes back to bite me in the bum but i think i'm safe....

[irlewy86]

9.5

Well maybe it is, but I reckon FoA have spent a lot of effort recently with disinformation. The coyote release date rumors illustrate this best.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by olds

Carn't say but heard 9.5 is all there getting

So this is recent testing, even though they have had a falcon running around a year before they announced EB4?

[EDManual]

they should have gone for a diesel falcon. I dont think I would get good ecomomy out of a turbo 4 falcon at all, no matter what tech it has. maybe if it was a manual though...

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

A mondeo 2.0 EB (i4T...effectively same engine) with approx 100kg less weight (if that) than an EB FG falcon is rated at about 7.5 L/100km ADR.

S-Max 2.0 Ecoboost is 1676 Kg and gets a combined fuel consumption of 8.1 l/100 klm.
No doubt, this is what Ford is expecting from the EB 2.0 Falcon,
kinda puts the 3.0 SIDI's 9.3 figure in the shade...

Also, S-Max EB 2.0: 0 to 100kph = 8.2 seconds.
I bet Ford gets that down to 7.5 seconds in the Falcon
to match its rival, the VE/VF 3.0 SIDI...

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by olds

Carn't say but heard 9.5 is all there getting

Unless you know the exact condition those figures were achieved under they are useless. You can only compare economy figures using the ADR formula, which measures cars under a certain lab test to compare one car to another. 9.5 could be city figures, combination or even on the high speed bowl for all we know.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by jpd80

S-Max 2.0 Ecoboost is 1676 Kg and gets a combined fuel consumption of 8.1 l/100 klm.
No doubt, this is what Ford is expecting from the EB 2.0 Falcon,
kinda puts the 3.0 SIDI's 9.3 figure in the shade...

Also, S-Max EB 2.0: 0 to 100kph = 8.2 seconds.
I bet Ford gets that down to 7.5 seconds in the Falcon
to match its rival, the VE/VF 3.0 SIDI...

The EB i4T FG will most likely weigh 1600-1625kg. The S-Max being a van has a larger drag factor by virtue of frontal area. Add that to the lower weight of Falcon and mid 7s l/100km is highly achievable.

[vztrt]

Bit of a taste

http://theage.drive.com.au/green-mot...224-1b6i3.html

Falcon's new turbo debuts in Volvos
Chris Harris
February 24, 2011 - 2:31PM

Four-cylinder ‘Ecoboost’ engine that will make Ford’s large car more fuel efficient at the end of the year is now available in Australia in two new Volvo models.

The new four-cylinder turbo Ford Falcon doesn’t go on sale until later this year, but Australians can try a variation of the large car’s more fuel efficient engine in two new Volvos.

Volvo has borrowed the new direct-injection 2.0-litre ‘Ecoboost’ engine from former parent company Ford to create new entry-level models for its XC60 soft-roader and S60 sedan ranges.

It produces 177kW of power and 320Nm of torque – over an expansive rev range of 1800-5000rpm – in the new XC60 and S60 T5 models. The outputs are distributed to the front wheels via six-speed dual-clutch automatic that’s also taken from the Ford parts-bin.
Advertisement: Story continues below

On sale from next week, the XC60 T5 is priced from $54,150 (plus on-road costs) - $3500 less than the all-wheel-drive XC60 3.2-litre six-cylinder. The S60 T5 is priced from $51,950, making it $6000 cheaper than diesel-powered S60 D5 that was previously the base model.

Ford Australia has yet to confirm power and torque figures for the Falcon’s version of the four-cylinder, though the company has already tried to protect sales of its struggling large car by deciding not to import a new variant of the Mondeo medium car fitted with the same engine.

Volvo will add a third model with the Ecoboost engine when it launches its new V60 wagon next week - with pricing expected to carry a $3000 premium over the equivalent S60 upon which it is based.

Compliant with the latest Euro 5 emissions standards, the new ‘T5’ engine replaces the 169kW/320Nm 2.5-litre turbocharged five-cylinder unit that powers several current Volvo models including the C30 hatch, C70 coupe-convertible and S40/V50 sedan and wagon twins, as well as Ford’s Focus XR5 hot-hatch. Volvo Australia has yet to announce the timing for other models, however.

In XC60 guise, the T5 offers near-identical power and torque figures as the all-paw, naturally aspirated 3.2 six-cylinder from much lower revs and uses almost 2.0 litres less fuel per 100 kilometres (8.7L/100km) while emitting less carbon dioxide (198g vs 276g/km). At nearly 80 kilograms lighter, the T5 is also 1.3 seconds quicker to 100km/h from standstill.

When asked whether the T5’s introduction would kill off or cannibalise the identically equipped 3.2, Volvo Australia spokeswoman Laurissa Mirabelli conceded the overlap of engine performance but says ‘‘it comes down to whether customers want an all- or front-wheel drive vehicle.

he two models are different enough in terms of pricing, so it [the T5] won’t be replacing the six-cylinder at any stage’’.

Standard equipment for the XC60 T5 includes six airbags, stability control, cruise control, reverse parking sensors, electric park brake, electrically adjustable driver’s seat, leather trim, dual-zone climate-control, 17-inch alloy wheels, Bluetooth connectivity and the S60’s audio interface comprising a large, high-resolution screen to replace the current dual-screen set-up.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Bit of a taste

http://theage.drive.com.au/green-mot...224-1b6i3.html

It produces 177kW of power and 320Nm of torque – over an expansive rev range of 1800-5000rpm – in the new XC60 and S60 T5 models.

Nice power and torque delivery and outputs.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by phillyc

Nice power and torque delivery and outputs.

Am I reading right that the weight for the S60 is just over 2T?

http://www.volvocars.com/au/all-cars...ical-spec.aspx

[naddis01]

I read that as the GVM and 1522kg is the kerb weight

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Am I reading right that the weight for the S60 is just over 2T?

http://www.volvocars.com/au/all-cars...ical-spec.aspx

I think the 'serving weight' is the base weight with no fluids etc. Which is 1522kg. The Total weight is 2040kg.

The T6 AWD weight is listed as 1680/2220kg.

http://www.carbuddy.com.au/car/value...7&tid=64469497

This site lists the T6 AWD as being 1888kg.

So, maybe the S60 2.0T EcoBoosted T5 would be 1725kg... My guess! Heavy, very heavy for a midsizer. Makes the economy figure even better. Should be tops in the Falcon

[vztrt]

So the current Falcon has a 1704kg kerb weight.

Do we know how much weight drops off with the I4T??

[Maggot]

Cant imagine a car with 500kg of fluid.. thats 2.5 44 gallon drums! :-) Sounds like the larger figure is with 5 fatties on board as well.

[Road_Warrior]

When they do measurements with fluids, is that with a full petrol tank?

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Maggot

Cant imagine a car with 500kg of fluid.. thats 2.5 44 gallon drums! :-) Sounds like the larger figure is with 5 fatties on board as well.

Nor can I. The S60 T6 figures were 1680/2220kg on the Volvo site and the Aussie carbuddy site says 1888kg. So, 208kg difference between 'serving' and 'kerb' weights. Fuel capacity is 67L. ie ~55kg

Based on that difference of 208kg, I suggested 1725kg kerb based off the 1522/2040kg as per Volvo website.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by vztrt

So the current Falcon has a 1704kg kerb weight.

Do we know how much weight drops off with the I4T??

Our best guestimate is that the DOHC I6 weighs 195kg. Co-incidentally the same as Coyote 5.0L.

Ford have said the 2.0L EB4 will be 25kg lighter than a 3.5L V6.

The 2.0L Ford Duratec weigh 115kg according to enthusiast Fiesta / Focus sites. Weight needs to be added for turbos / charge cooling etc. Call it 25kg.

So, potentially a 1650kg Falcon is on the cards.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by phillyc

So, potentially a 1650kg Falcon is on the cards.

Sounds like a good guess. This thing should be pretty good and with a 6 speed it should be geared well for a good mix of power and economy.

[Falc'man]

Maybe the 2 tonnes are for the convertibles?