Four-cylinder Falcon uses less fuel than Mazda3...

.FoMoCo. · 01-02-2012, 08:39 PM

New story on the ecoboost falcon spotted on drive tonight:

http:// http://smh.drive.com.au/moto...201-1qsne.html

Quote:

It's official: large cars can now have small-car economy.

Judgment day for the Ford Falcon has arrived.

Ford has removed fuel consumption from the debate about large cars by fitting its big sedan with a four-cylinder engine that delivers small-car economy.

In a move seen as a last roll of the dice for Ford Australia's factory operations, the four-cylinder Falcon has a fuel economy rating of 8.1L/100km, according to official figures released today.

In its standard form, the Mazda3 small car -Australia's top-selling vehicle last year - consumes 8.2L/100km with automatic transmission, according to Federal Government rating label figures.

If Falcon sales aren't revived by this latest taxpayer-funded hi-tech change then it will indicate there may be other reasons for the home-grown sedan's dramatic drop in popularity - and that the poor perception of the vehicle may have been much worse than the economic reality.

Ford has already discovered Falcon sales haven't been revived by low running costs and a new, super-efficient LPG system, which means the vehicle's options for its future are running out.

Ford Australia recently announced an investment of $103 million (using $34 million from the Federal Government and an estimated $19 million from the Victorian Government) to keep the Falcon in production until 2016.

As reported last year by Drive, the four-cylinder Falcon will cost the same price as the six-cylinder models that will continue to sell alongside it.

The retail cost for a four-cylinder Falcon starts from $37,235, although private and fleet buyers routinely pay heavily discounted prices.

Earlier reports claimed that Ford was considering a price premium for the four-cylinder Falcon but research showed Australian car buyers weren't prepared to pay a premium for the same car with a smaller engine.

The similarly-sized Ford Mondeo with the same engine as the four-cylinder Falcon costs $37,740.

The four-cylinder Falcon uses 18 per cent less fuel than the six-cylinder Falcon and 9 per cent less than the six-cylinder Commodore.

However, the four-cylinder Falcon is not as frugal as the new Toyota Camry, which has a consumption of 7.9L/100km.

And more luxurious models in the four-cylinder Falcon range - the G6 and G6E - consume 8.5L/100km compared to 8.9L/100km for the equivalent Berlina V6 and 9.8L/100km for the Calais V6.

Maybe a little negative? I think those figures are ok, not earth shattering, but ok.

Road_Warrior · 01-02-2012, 08:46 PM

Yes, Drive being Drive have tried to weave as much negativity into it as they can.

Falc'man · 01-02-2012, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Yes, Drive being Drive have tried to weave as much negativity into it as they can.

Yep. It's people like who wrote this that deserve a bit of what is in your signature. They're still choking on the pie they had from the announcement that Falcon will keep on to 2016 (and beyond!!). Sad cases.

GTP-03 · 01-02-2012, 09:41 PM

These guys truly hate Ford, but why? Because they WANT Ford to close down, because it will make them happy, simple!

Ducati888 · 02-02-2012, 12:22 PM

Are the ecoboost ones going to be called G6 and G6E, as they say in the last sentence? That makes no sense.

TMC · 02-02-2012, 12:28 PM

Yes, what a positive article. Positively NEGATIVE!!!!!!!!!!

"Last roll of the dice" - WHAT?????

They even try and make a positive out of the Holden's worse fuel economy.

Mee thinx thatz dumm

rancidpunx · 02-02-2012, 02:45 PM

Seriously who lets this stuff get printed. This article should scream get out there and buy Australia, keep your money here, save Australian jobs, you can have a large car thats uses less fuel than you Mazda.

falconnut · 02-02-2012, 02:52 PM

Yet they prop up the Camry... sigh

The most boring, underpowered and under equipped and overpriced car in the large car segment.

Windsor342ci · 02-02-2012, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

Seriously who lets this stuff get printed. This article should scream get out there and buy Australia, keep your money here, save Australian jobs, you can have a large car thats uses less fuel than you Mazda.

Very very well said!!!

Bossxr8 · 02-02-2012, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducati888

Are the ecoboost ones going to be called G6 and G6E, as they say in the last sentence? That makes no sense.

No different to BMW badging their cars totally different to engine size.

328i used to mean a 2.8 litre. Now its a 2 litre hi boost version of the new 4 cylinder turbo. And hardly any of the other badges match engine size anymore either.

AMG also continue to call the E 63 a 63 even though its now a 5.5 litre engine. Same with others in the range that continue with 63.

Ford are wise to not make them G4 or G4E, as they don't want people to know its a 4 cylinder. They will advertise it as Ecoboost, and not mention its a 4 just in case it turns some people off buying one.

They will just have a little Ecoboost badge on the boot.

.FoMoCo. · 02-02-2012, 05:52 PM

As long as they don't put falcon "L" or starfire anywhere I guess...

EDManual · 02-02-2012, 06:13 PM

but a falcon costs nearly twice the price of a mazda 3? Doesnt compare

jpd80 · 02-02-2012, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EDManual

but a falcon costs nearly twice the price of a mazda 3? Doesnt compare

How dare you come on here spreading the truth.....

falconnut · 02-02-2012, 06:22 PM

It does compare because its a direct competitor.

.FoMoCo. · 02-02-2012, 06:27 PM

But to be fair, the falcon is a whole lot more car than the Mazda, It's still a family sized sedan.

falconnut · 02-02-2012, 06:32 PM

and its not a fwd bar fridge

jpd80 · 02-02-2012, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by .FoMoCo.

But to be fair, the falcon is a whole lot more car than the Mazda, It's still a family sized sedan.

It's still a whole lot more to finance too and lets be realistic about this, not many working families
can afford the luxury of a $40,000 car when a $25,000 one will do....rent and food come first.

If you look at the cost of building a Mondeo versus a Focus, there's not a lot of difference and if Ford
started building them here and sold them for $25,000, they would have a lot more buyer's attention.

Terry Turbo · 02-02-2012, 10:09 PM

Unfortunately, we must face facts.

Ford lost the plot product and marketing wise when they dropped the V8 with the XE and then realised that GMH could still sell V8's. It also helps when you support your product with serious $ for the race teams (even if they have red Vodafone livery), which appeal to the younger customers that then influence their kids into the blue oval like my dad did with me.

If the guys at Broadmeadows got serious and put the diesel in the Falcon instead of a...... (I can bareley say it)... a 4 cylinder (in a Falcon!), then they would get the accolades for providing a frugal family car, with power and torque to tow and at a realistic price.

For christsakes Ford Australia, WTF are you doing???!!!!!

If there is going to be no Falcon, which it seriously looks to be the case after 2016, then the world will be a very different place.

If only Geoff Polites was here. He must be rolling in his grave......

XR Martin · 02-02-2012, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EDManual

but a falcon costs nearly twice the price of a mazda 3? Doesnt compare

Not after 12 months

turbodewd · 02-02-2012, 10:32 PM

Fuel consumption is one thing, but a Falcon is harder to park than a mazda 3.

They would need to trim the Falcon down to Camry size. Shave 100kg...

FalconXV · 02-02-2012, 10:46 PM

YES! Here's what Ford need to do

. Somebody photoshop the Mazda3 with its smiley face upside down and sad. Put FG2 next to it.
Headings :Mazda - 'I have a drinking problem' Falcy -' I don't.'
send submission to Ford marketing, I don't care if i get no credit for it.

Ducati888 · 03-02-2012, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

It's still a whole lot more to finance too and lets be realistic about this, not many working families
can afford the luxury of a $40,000 car when a $25,000 one will do....rent and food come first.

If you look at the cost of building a Mondeo versus a Focus, there's not a lot of difference and if Ford
started building them here and sold them for $25,000, they would have a lot more buyer's attention.

Fair points, but they are aimed at corporate fleets, not "working families". The dollars are in the fleet sales. The cost to purchase is also far less than retail to fleets.

I slightly disagree with the claim that not many can afford a $40K car though. Have a look at all the Euro cars stuck in traffic with you, the high end SUV's, and the higher spec models of just about anything else - people can afford $40K.