Ecoboost Falcon arrives in Aussie market

[jpd80]

LINK - performancedrive.com.au

 

It’s official, the 2012 Ford Falcon EcoBoost FG MkII is now on sale in Australia. The new 2.0-litre

turbo four-cylinder is available in the XT, G6, and G6E at no extra cost over the current six-cylinder

models.

 

 

 

 

This is the first ever four-cylinder Falcon to be released. The engine is based on the new international

2.0-litre EcoBoost TGDi turbo four-cylinder, featuring direct injection. In the Falcon, it produces 179kW

(240 hp) of power at 5500rpm and (261 lb ft) 353Nm of torque at just 2000rpm.

It may be down on power by 16kW over the six-cylinder, however, fuel economy outshines here.The

EcoBoost FG MkII comes with a combined fuel consumption rating of 8.1L/100km in the XT, and

8.5L/100km in the G6 and G6E. This is compared with the standard XT six-cylinder rating of

9.9L/100km (according to the Green Vehicle Guide government website).

 

 

 

 

The engine features a relatively high compression ratio of 9.3:1 for a turbo layout, and is fitted with

variable valve timing on the inlet and exhaust cams. The unit is Euro 4 emissions certified, and

Euro 5 “capable”.

 

Prices are as follows (excluding on-road costs):

• 2012 Ford Falcon EcoBoost FG MkII XT – $37,235
  
• 2012 Ford Falcon EcoBoost FG MkII G6 – $40,835
  
• 2012 Ford Falcon EcoBoost FG MkII G6E – $46,735
  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2012 by jpd80

[twintornados]

Ford needs to do two things:

 

1.) Export this to the USA either;

........a.) intact and sell it here as Falcon as a stable mate to Mustang, or

........b.) with Lincoln styling cues and call it Continental (one or the other, but not both)

 

and

 

2.) Export it to China.

 

LINK - performancedrive.com.au

[rkisler]

LINK - performancedrive.com.au

 

It’s official, the 2012 Ford Falcon EcoBoost FG MkII is now on sale in Australia. The new 2.0-litre

turbo four-cylinder is available in the XT, G6, and G6E at no extra cost over the current six-cylinder

models.

 

Oh, Oz is such a strange place. Water circulates in toilets counterclockwise, and your engines are mounted NS rather than EW.

[jpd80]

Oh, Oz is such a strange place. Water circulates in toilets counterclockwise, and your engines are mounted NS rather than EW.

LOL, Falcon now proving that a large RWD sedan can achieve similar fuel economy as Ford's global Mondeo...

 

Some more photos for those wanting to store archives for future discussions..

 

 

 

[Biker16]

Ford needs to do two things:

 

1.) Export this to the USA either;

........a.) intact and sell it here as Falcon as a stable mate to Mustang, or

........b.) with Lincoln styling cues and call it Continental (one or the other, but not both)

 

and

 

2.) Export it to China.

 

hey We and china need LHD, I do not think they are capable of making a LHD falcon.

[jpd80]

hey We and china need LHD, I do not think they are capable of making a LHD falcon.

What?

Falcon is LHD preserved, meaning the important pre steps in provisioning for a LHD version has been done

and nothing except a sound business plan is preventing that from happening, China may be the key to making that happen...

[Biker16]

What?

Falcon is LHD preserved, meaning the important pre steps in provisioning for a LHD version has been done

and nothing except a sound business plan is preventing that from happening, China may be the key to making that happen...

 

did not know that. what are the issues with the Falcon, be honest why can't it be used for GRWD?

[92merc]

did not know that. what are the issues with the Falcon, be honest why can't it be used for GRWD?

I think Ford may also be working on combining certain aspects of this car into the next Mustang, which will be global. Not to say they have to share the same platform. But if they can share engines, suspension, and other parts, that'll save a lot of money. But the business case will still need to be made for the four door. A Mustang is an image car for Ford, so that is more likely to be made.

[jpd80]

I think Ford may also be working on combining certain aspects of this car into the next Mustang, which will be global. Not to say they have to share the same platform. But if they can share engines, suspension, and other parts, that'll save a lot of money. But the business case will still need to be made for the four door. A Mustang is an image car for Ford, so that is more likely to be made.

Combining with Mustang is more about Falcon's survival than diluting Mustang,

think of it as a way of One Ford helping out a far flung cousin..

 

I have a feeling that if a RWD Falcon survives, it will be a unique combination

of existing engineering modules that tip the scales of economy back towards viable.

And that's a;ll we need in our little corner, a little ray of sunshine from Dearborn..

[Biker16]

someone needs to make a case for a Global RWD Taurus flagship sedan, IMO this would sit above the Mondeo, it would be low volume, in europe and OZ, but medium volume in the US and maybe china.

 

It would provide a healthy boost to GRWD volumes and allow Ford to sell a greater differentiated product that a FWD/AWD Taurus, and posibly a higher margin product that FOE desperately needs for sustainable profits.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Biker16

[03 LS]

Combining with Mustang is more about Falcon's survival than diluting Mustang,

think of it as a way of One Ford helping out a far flung cousin..

 

I have a feeling that if a RWD Falcon survives, it will be a unique combination

of existing engineering modules that tip the scales of economy back towards viable.

And that's a;ll we need in our little corner, a little ray of sunshine from Dearborn..

I think you are probably right, about the first line.

IMHO, Ford should not, and will not keep two separate RWD platforms for ~100k each. They may keep one RWD (Mustang) for maybe 150k~200k volume. Or they can go GRWD. To make GRWD viable, however, it needs to fill two assembly plants, one in US, one in AU, so about 400k~500k output a year. Frankly, they need more than just two models to make it. And However many they end up with, they all need to go global.

[jpd80]

someone needs to make a case for a Global RWD Taurus flagship sedan, IMO this would sit above the Mondeo, it would be low volume, in europe and OZ, but medium volume in the US and maybe china.

 

It would provide a healthy boost to GRWD volumes and allow Ford to sell a greater differentiated product that a FWD/AWD Taurus, and posibly a higher margin product that FOE deparatly needs for sustainable profits.

Forget about the paneling for a moment, the engine bay of the Falcon is uniquely large enough to accommodate I-6 and V8 engines

but equally by my thumbnail observations, a transversely mounted Ford v6 will also fit by juggling around engine bay items.

Think of the implications of a car capable of being RWD, FWd and AWD, sure ther's a lot of changes needed but the

Falcon may still have one last trick left to play..

I think you are probably right, about the first line.

IMHO, Ford should not, and will not keep two separate RWD platforms for ~100k each. They may keep one RWD (Mustang) for maybe 150k~200k volume. Or they can go GRWD. To make GRWD viable, however, it needs to fill two assembly plants, one in US, one in AU, so about 400k~500k output a year. Frankly, they need more than just two models to make it. And However many they end up with, they all need to go global.

With niche vehicles, you don't need huge volumes if the retail price is right.

Edited April 23, 2012 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

posibly a higher margin product that FOE deparatly needs for sustainable profits.

I doubt that.

 

Scorpio.

 

About the only entry level manufacturers that are selling premium executive vehicles in Europe are Citroen and Peugeot, and AFAIK, their buyers are almost exclusively French. If not even VW is selling a premium VW branded vehicle, that's probably a sign that the market doesn't exist. Blame BMW.

[03 LS]

With niche vehicles, you don't need huge volumes if the retail price is right.

??

Not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying Ford should keep both Mustang and Falcon as unique niche products? Or after going GRWD, they are still considered niche?

[BORG]

Like Marsupials, Ford of Oz is a curious evolutionary holdover from a different land. Global Ford already has a next-gen platform for large sedans and Crossovers, it makes no business sense to have another. This is not GM, they don't do business the same way...thankfully.

[RichardJensen]

Regarding the GRWD debate:

 

It makes sense, IMO, for the Falcon & Mustang to share a significant amount of engineering ahead of the firewall. This fits in with the link Biker posted awhile back about the VW 'architecture' that is basically a standardized powerpack/firewall/front suspension/subframe.

 

I think that GRWD makes sense this far and not much farther. I don't quite consider that an architecture. The Mustang requires a very unique treatment behind the firewall, and I don't think it pays to share much between the Falcon & Mustang behind the firewall.

 

Where it may make sense is sharing between the Falcon and a Lincoln behind the firewall. I'm not quite convinced that the US market would support a Ford branded sedan priced above the Taurus, especially a RWD one. You're basically combining two niche markets at that point (RWD sedans + $40k+ sedans with entry level badges).

 

But, IMO, you could do significant parts sharing between a Falcon and Lincoln luxury sedan, provided that the threshold for key benchmarks is set by Lincoln.

[Biker16]

I think you are probably right, about the first line.

IMHO, Ford should not, and will not keep two separate RWD platforms for ~100k each. They may keep one RWD (Mustang) for maybe 150k~200k volume. Or they can go GRWD. To make GRWD viable, however, it needs to fill two assembly plants, one in US, one in AU, so about 400k~500k output a year. Frankly, they need more than just two models to make it. And However many they end up with, they all need to go global.

 

 

FOA is on track sell less than 20,000 falcons in 2012. sourcing is not the the issue here its the lack of money for investment in a replacement. the large car segment is shrinking and it is time for it to evolve into something else to remain relevant.

 

• the Falcon
  

[Biker16]

I doubt that.

 

Scorpio

.

 

how long ago was that? how is this relevant to the discussion at hand?

 

 

About the only entry level manufacturers that are selling premium executive vehicles in Europe are Citroen and Peugeot, and AFAIK, their buyers are almost exclusively French. If not even VW is selling a premium VW branded vehicle, that's probably a sign that the market doesn't exist. Blame BMW.

 

VW sell the premium CC sedan and the phaeton above the Passat, at least in the UK.

[papilgee4evaeva]

VW sell the premium CC sedan and the phaeton above the Passat, at least in the UK.

 

Really, Biker? REALLY???? :hysterical2:

 

199 Phaeton units in all of 2011 proves something positive?

 

Before you answer that, bear in mind that the Bentley Continental line (GT/Supersports/Flying Spur), based upon the Phaeton, sold over 4 times as much as the Phaeton.

[Biker16]

Like Marsupials, Ford of Oz is a curious evolutionary holdover from a different land. Global Ford already has a next-gen platform for large sedans and Crossovers, it makes no business sense to have another. This is not GM, they don't do business the same way...thankfully.

 

I guess you could lump Nissan, Toyota, and VW into the group of manufacturers with GM with 2 or more large car architectures.

 

It is not so black and White. If your are offering multiple architectures to cover different market segment but the same size classes, it makes sense to have 2 separate architectures.

 

 

simply because a car is RWD does not mean it cannot share high-value components with other FWD architectures.

 

HVAC, telematics, safety systems, electrical systems, brakes, power steering systems, etc, can be shared between FWD and RWD.

 

Because of the price premium of luxury models they can afford to vary more from the base Architecture, If maintaining that 60% of the Architecture, Lincoln LWB models can afford to to be LWB because they can charge a premium.

 

GRWD 20-30% part commonality by Cost with EUCD/C2

 

Mustang 120,000 units (Base)

 

Taurus/Falcon/PI 150,000 units (60% commonality with architectural Base)

 

MKS 30-50,000 units (80-90% commonality with Taurus Falcon.)

 

MK! long wheelbase flagship 30-40,000 units(75% commonality with the MKS)

 

Territory/Navigator 100,000 units 65% commonality with the Taurus/Falcon.

 

Expect high carryover of design elements to future versions of current models. base architecture designed to last decades.

[Biker16]

Really, Biker? REALLY???? :hysterical2:

 

199 Phaeton units in all of 2011 proves something positive?

 

Before you answer that, bear in mind that the Bentley Continental line (GT/Supersports/Flying Spur), based upon the Phaeton, sold over 4 times as much as the Phaeton.

 

Richard said that VW did not sell any premium vehicles in Europe, they sell 2.

[2b2]

Regarding the GRWD debate:

 

It makes sense, IMO, for the Falcon & Mustang to share a significant amount of engineering ahead of the firewall...

...I think that GRWD makes sense this far and not much farther. I don't quite consider that an architecture. The Mustang requires a very unique treatment behind the firewall, and I don't think it pays to share much between the Falcon & Mustang behind the firewall.

 

Where it may make sense is sharing between the Falcon and a Lincoln behind the firewall. I'm not quite convinced that the US market would support a Ford branded sedan priced above the Taurus, especially a RWD one. You're basically combining two niche markets at that point (RWD sedans + $40k+ sedans with entry level badges).

 

But, IMO, you could do significant parts sharing between a Falcon and Lincoln luxury sedan, provided that the threshold for key benchmarks is set by Lincoln.

...With niche vehicles, you don't need huge volumes if the retail price is right.

...It would provide a healthy boost to GRWD volumes and allow Ford to sell a greater differentiated product that a FWD/AWD Taurus, and posibly a higher margin product that FOE desperately needs for sustainable profits.

[ broken record ]

imho the "architecture" could be shared over 2 "platforms":

a "silo'ed" small Rwd platform for Mustang and a Lincoln sportsedan & coupe/coupe-cabrio

&

a larger+larger platform for Falcon/Territory+Lincolns: Continental/Aviator/Navigator

 

dunno if this provides "enough" profit / volume for profits

dunno how they can solve the production-location problem

but

imho finding these solutions is critical for Lincoln's survival

Edited April 23, 2012 by 2b2

[papilgee4evaeva]

Richard said that VW did not sell any premium vehicles in Europe, they sell 2.

 

Phaeton's on sale. Doesn't mean that they sell.

 

I'll grant you CC.

[jpd80]

Where are the major costs in Vehicle development situated in combining RWD vehicles?

Answer: Forward of the fire wall - front suspension, front crash protection framing, Power train and electrical system.

 

From the A pillar back, Falcon already has EUCD slim door technology and side frames, so I'd say continue

that sharing by basically gluing a Mustang front module to an AWD Fusion shell that's been slightly enlarged.

Voila, one Falcon with lots of fairly common engineering that shared throughout Ford.

 

I'm not looking to reinvent the wheel here but that would be a great way to expedite a new RWD vehicle

while following the guidelines of "One Ford" and maximizing commonality of already developed parts

and engineering. I think a RWD developed like that would save a lot of money in development and

open doors to other markets by offering potential buyers a RWD that is easy to make and

reflects the performance and fuel economy expectations of the market.

Edited April 23, 2012 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

Okay, so VW sells the CC. That means Ford should revisit the Scorpio instead of, oh, say, selling the Taurus in Europe?