Car Journos.....oh my goodness....

[Swordsman88]

Ok guys....this should probably be in the Falcon section of the forum so mods please move if necessary.

I know most of you have a real love/hate relationship with car journos. Sure we love it when a Ford gets praise in the press, and good media surely helps, but on the other hand you get stories like this one. If this is a repost then my apologies but i came accross this pearler of a story from our good friend Joshua Dowling :
.................................................. .................................................
Drive.com.au
FG XR6T review:

When Australia's best drivers grid up for this weekend's Bathurst 1000, the air will be filled with the roar of V8s.

But if the rules required all race cars to be the same as those the public can buy off a showroom floor, as was the case in the first few decades of The Great Race, this vehicle would likely be at the head of the field: the Ford Falcon XR6 Turbo.

Ford's turbo tearaway was born in 2002 when the previous Falcon range was updated. With better acceleration and fuel economy than the Ford V8, it instantly became the highlight of the Falcon range.

Ford Australia wouldn't say it at the time and, to be frank, won't even admit it today but the main reason the company invested so heavily in a turbocharged six-cylinder engine was because it knew the V8 used in the Falcon wouldn't quite cut it.

At the time, Holden's Commodore had a 5.7-litre V8, with a 6.0-litre V8 in the wings to replace it.

The comparatively small 5.4-litre V8 used in the Falcon XR8 was originally designed for use in Ford pick-ups in the US; it was never intended to be used in a performance sedan.

So its DNA is not suited to high revs and peak power, which is why Ford Australia makes its own modifications to every V8 before it gets dropped into an XR8.

When you consider the two basic criteria of a good engine - economy and performance - the Falcon XR8 donk is still no match for Holden's V8 or Ford's turbo six.

So it's a good thing Ford had the foresight to switch to turbo-six power. For the new model, the company had six years to finesse the technology and has produced yet another cracking result.

The acceleration times tell the story. In our satellite-timed 0 to 100kmh tests, the XR6 Turbo stopped the clock in 5.4 seconds - almost a half-second quicker than the Holden V8 and almost one second quicker than the Ford XR8.

We recorded 5.1-seconds in an XR6 Turbo at the media launch for the car but haven't been able to repeat it since. We put the variation down to a difference in grip of the road surfaces and we know the first car had been drinking racing-grade, 100-octane unleaded fuel.

Whichever way you cut it, the Falcon XR6 Turbo is rapid.

So how does Ford do it? The new model has a bigger turbo, a bigger intercooler (positioned neatly in the centre of the lower bumper and painted bright silver so everyone knows you've got the turbo model) and slightly less weight.

Significantly, the XR6 Turbo is about 50 kilograms lighter over the nose than the XR8, which makes it feel less cumbersome in tight turns.

The XR6 Turbo's engine is also an excellent example of efficiency. The latest model uses less fuel than the one it replaces, despite being quicker and more powerful.

The steering is greatly improved now Ford has removed much of the nervousness that was a trait of the previous model and the power of the turbo is almost seamless. There is now only a slight delay between squeezing the throttle and all hell breaking loose.

The six-speed automatic (a $1500 option) is still our preference. It ensures the turbo is never off the boil during gear changes.

Ford has developed a launch control for manual versions of the XR6 Turbo - and engineers for the company say the manual can be one-tenth of a second quicker - but we prefer the consistency and refinement of the auto.

The six-speed manual gear shifts in the new Fords we've sampled are clunky. When Ford introduced the six-speed in October 2004 it gave the media a two-hour presentation on how smooth the shift action was.

Conspicuous by its absence was any mention of refinement in the rest of the drive line. The shift action is smooth (although the gear lever looks downmarket) but the thumping noise from where the tail shaft meets the differential sounds like there is a man lying under the car and hitting it with a hammer.

Even slow, gentle gear changes provoke a "ker-thunk" from under the back seat.

The brakes are fine for everyday use but given how potent this model is, they should be bigger.

Ford upgraded the brake package on the XR6 Turbo in October 2005 and fitted the larger front and rear discs from the Ford Territory soft-roader.

However, presumably as a cost-cutting measure, Ford has left the large front discs in place with the latest XR6 Turbo but fitted the standard Falcon's smaller rear discs.

Ford says the braking performance is the same if not better but in our opinion the XR6 Turbo needs more braking power, not less, because it is arriving at corners more rapidly than it did before.

On test, the brakes had a precise feel when driven normally but they can fade after repeated heavy use. It would be nice to at least have the option of bigger brakes but due to the sophisticated electronics that monitor the stability control, non-standard brakes can interfere with the calibration of the safety systems. The only option is to buy the $65,000 Ford Performance Vehicles version of this car, which has race-bred Brembo brakes.

Dislikes? There aren't many. Our previous comments on regular Falcon models apply. Rather than lowering the seating position, Ford has simply increased the height of the centre console and the waistline to create the perception you're sitting lower in the car.

Compared with a Commodore, the Falcon's driver seat feels like a high chair. Based on the international (SAE 1100) standards manufacturers use to measure interior space, the Falcon has more shoulder, head and legroom up front.

But SAE 1100 data can vary because each maker can choose where it sets the "hip point" for the 95th-percentile dummy. Which is why the brochures say the Falcon is roomier but, subjectively at least, the Commodore feels bigger.

Not that Holden buyers are likely to set foot in a Ford showroom (and vice versa) and compare the difference.

Car companies love this sort of stubbornness when it comes to brand loyalty but Ford privately wishes its diehard fans would warm to the turbo model.

Early indications are the Falcon XR8 may not survive beyond 2010 because the vehicle needs to be updated to comply with new emissions regulations.

Despite overwhelming evidence that the XR6 Turbo makes an XR8 look redundant in more ways than one, Australians are still in love with V8s. The Falcon XR8 outsells the XR6 Turbo two-to-one purely because of the sound.

And that's why this weekend we're watching V8s race around Bathurst and not hybrid cars - or turbocharged sixes.
.................................................. .................................................. ....
Source: http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...eID=57613&vf=1

There are a whole host of things that annoy me about this story (and this writer in general), but the major one is the not too subtle bias he has against ford and pro-holden. While he likes the car (who wouldn't, its an XR6T) he rubbishes the Falcon in several areas for no reason.

The rant about the drive train shunt is completely unecessary, and his story isn't even the same gearbox (which he ignores, refering to the old gearbox introduced back in 2004). Not to mention everyone knows the holden manual is set up even worse....and is the old model.

Continual bashing of the BOSS motor....im not even a Falcon V8 man but that angers me because it is totally unfounded. THe 5.4 might not outgrunt a 6.0litre holden out of the showroom but we know run in ones do easilly. Its a mean spirited rant anyway, since the review is about the XR6T.

Factual errors abound, as usual. The FG (correct me if im wrong) does not use a bigger turbo....its a custom design smaller unit with more boost.... As for the brakes, according to wheels magazine FG launch review the braking system is the same as BF (except for the new front end mounting)....Either way whether the car is underbraked or not it certainly isn't worse than the BF and way better than the holden set up (SS brakes always being rubbished).

Now dont get me wrong i'm fine with Ford's being criticized, i realise they aren't perfect. But while other media outlets have some sense of impartiality this guy (and drive generally) just has a total bias and tone against Ford. He makes factual errors and keeps harping on about how crap the BOSS and XR8 is. He even insinuates Ford wants people to abandon the V8 - like they would tell him that! :

So guys, am i talking out my proverbial or is this guy a tool?????