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?????

[Bad Bird]

I think you are looking for things to be angry at. Just my opinion...

[Swordsman88]

You may be right bad bird.....as i say i could be totally off base. Just wondering what others thought of the article/writer.....

[Late braker]

Having driven a VE SV6 and a BF XR6 back to back, the smoothness in the driveline in the XR was noticeably better, the Commodore although very willing and undeniably quick (but not quicker) felt rough, engine was very noisy throughout the range even thoug it sounded good, it was intrusive, the seats were too low, no matter how I adjusted them, the door sills were too high, the visibility wasn't as good, the A pillars too thick, the side mirrors too small, the dash readout was annoying, the A/C vents were not as efficient, the indicators had an annoying tick to them swithgear in the console for windows etc looked cheap and wouldn't last and generally the finish was not as good as the BF XR6. Overall, the car was inferior to the XR6.

How's that for you?

I bought the XR6.

[GTP owner]

I agree with 99% of what he says. i think you are looking to be offended. The xr8 is inferior. The seats are too high. The driveline does clunk like a mongrel. The xr6t is faster than a chev v8. The brakes are insufficient for the power it makes. I can go on.

Go for a drive in all these cars - and own a couple before making judgement. I drove a new clubsport last week. It was slower than the missus' generic shipped xr6t, but the brakes were better and the handling was nicer. But i did not like the seats. Just because i rate the xr6t below another car for one aspect or another does not mean that i have a bias against it.

[DBourne]

to be honest i just read it as an article and only noticed your gripes after reading your post...

i think you might have slightly read into it a bit too much.

also, anyone who buys a car because of a review is a complete pillock

[FalconXR6]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

to be honest i just read it as an article and only noticed your gripes after reading your post...

i think you might have slightly read into it a bit too much.

also, anyone who buys a car because of a review is a complete pillock

Spot on!
People read WAY too much into car reviews by journo's.

Best example of stupid journalism would have to be with the BA/BF XR8.
When the thing first come out journo's were banging on about how much torque it had low down and that top gear at highway speeds was so useable and the engine was very flexible etc, etc. Then, as time went by, the XR8 seemed to get worse and worse and eventually ended up having no power or torque below 4000rpm. How this happened when the car remained largely unchanged has got me stuffed but people are influenced by this.

You listen to what people who have never driven a BOSS say about them.
They'll tell you that they are weak below 4000rpm.
They'll tell you that the power band is too narrow.
And they'll tell you that a 4.0 litre turbo will flog it.
And, IMO, all because they take journo reviews as gospel.

Silly.

But yes, that review on the XR8...ah, sorry XR6T was hard to relate to.

[freaky]

I agree with the journo.

The larger turbo is a mistake. Its smaller now, with the exception of the FPV F6 which uses the same as the BF.

[outback_ute]

Yep he's definitely wrong on the turbo, and also conveniently does not mention our Boss V8 is based on the SVT Mustang Cobra R engine will rev given the chance, although granted he does not want to write an essay on something that is a side-note to the main article.

Also the comments about interior space - Falcon has better head, leg & shoulder room but the measurement system is flawed because of how the hip width measurement is done - hang on, the Falcon wasn't claimed to have more hip room!

[4Vman]

How long have i been saying this:

"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.

....Australians are still in love with V8s. The Falcon XR8 outsells the XR6 Turbo two-to-one purely because of the sound."

[Mr. Whippy]

I think I'm also in the "The article wasnt that bad" camp

[Swordsman88]

Ok people, so maybe i have read too much into it then.... I'm no fan of this Dowling fellow which may explain my response to the article.

My main objection was the tone of the article, and since it depends on how you read it i suppose not everyone else got the same thing.

As i said, i don't really have much of a problem with the comments about the car itself it is moreso his continual attacks on the BOSS in a XR6T review. I mean its not like you see journos harping on about the crappy alloytec v6 in a SS review now is it.......

[DoreSlamR]

The only main gripe I found with the article is he mentions a couple of times that the 5.4L motor is gone in 2010, did he mention that the I6 is out the door as well? No.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

to be honest i just read it as an article and only noticed your gripes after reading your post...

i think you might have slightly read into it a bit too much.

also, anyone who buys a car because of a review is a complete pillock

Yes, I thought it was a paid advert for the Falcon.

[irlewy86]

Josh Dowlings worst nightmere;

Having to write an article about Ford and not mention Holden once.

[xbgs351]

Why not bash the overweight, overdimensioned, overstressed Boss motor?

[mcnews]

My only criticism would be that as he liked to compare it so much to the V8 Commodore and Falcon he should have also put in there a comparison against the gahstly V6 Commodore to help put that into perspective but overall I don't see much to complain about.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Ok people, so maybe i have read too much into it then.... I'm no fan of this Dowling fellow which may explain my response to the article.

My main objection was the tone of the article, and since it depends on how you read it i suppose not everyone else got the same thing.

As i said, i don't really have much of a problem with the comments about the car itself it is moreso his continual attacks on the BOSS in a XR6T review. I mean its not like you see journos harping on about the crappy alloytec v6 in a SS review now is it.......

NO, you didn't read too much into it, I know exactly where you're coming from. He's scare-mongering, and trying to push the idea that Ford should drop the V8, and in context of your rant, this is a very big point. No where does Ford say or indicate they will do this. He can shove his 6.0 up his rear 8 cylinders, I'd take the Boss over both the SS and XR6T any day. Bah, I'm not racing on a circuit everyday (and neither are 95% of it's buyers) to worry about a the little extra nose heaviness. Apart from that, the V8 Brutes have shown some indication that the Falcon with the Boss is comparable to the Commodore 6.0.

[Bossxr8]

He's talking out his ar5e when he says he knows that Ford put 100 octane "race fuel" in the launch FG. For one, how would he know, did he test it, and 2, 100 octane V Power from Shell is not race fuel if it comes from a bowser in a suburban servo. And it will easily run 0-100 in 5.1 with just normal 98, 100 octane won't make half a second difference.

He always has a way of making subtle digs at Fords, and always manages to throw in a reference to how good he thinks Holdens are in every review. He is an absolute TOOL. :

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

NO, you didn't read too much into it, I know exactly where you're coming from. He's scare-mongering, and trying to push the idea that Ford should drop the V8, and in context of your rant, this is a very big point. No where does Ford say or indicate they will do this. He can shove his 6.0 up his rear 8 cylinders, I'd take the Boss over both the SS and XR6T any day. Bah, I'm not racing on a circuit everyday (and neither are 95% of it's buyers) to worry about a the little extra nose heaviness. Apart from that, the V8 Brutes have shown some indication that the Falcon with the Boss is comparable to the Commodore 6.0.

Also I remember the XR8 winning a 12 hour race in its enduro's cause it keeps going and going. Unlike the GM V8's that have been proven to suffer in power from heat.

[colossus]

I agree that Josh Dowling is a biased tool, BUT I couldn't see where he rubbished the Falcon in that article - it was mostly positive/factual.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Also I remember the XR8 winning a 12 hour race in its enduro's cause it keeps going and going. Unlike the GM V8's that have been proven to suffer in power from heat.

You mean one lasted 12 hours without the oil pump gears failing?

[mik]

what about the gear shift, in another journo`s report the gearshift was better than before, i think half of these blokes are full of wind and would`nt know a spark plug from oxygen sensor.

[Ghiadude]

Originally Posted by mik

what about the gear shift, in another journo`s report the gearshift was better than before, i think half of these blokes are full of wind and would`nt know a spark plug from oxygen sensor.

some trivia
spark plugs are the same size and thread as oxygen sensors on some cars.

[ehast13]

I reckon the boss in the ba/bf is pretty dissapointing down low compared with a 5.6 T series. It's better than a 5.7 LS1. The turbo is faster again (much more impressive). I haven't driven an FG FPV, but I'd buy a v8 falcon over a holden or even the turbo. I don't know why. I just like 'em. Always have.

If I wrote the article, I would criticize the holdens much more because I am a biased so and so.

Just between you and me though, the 6.2 is a pretty nice engine to punt. Much more impressive than the boss 290. But what would you expect from an engine nearly a litre bigger.

I'd still by a boss

Becaused I'm a biased blue oval boy.

We all have our biases. Even journos, teachers, police, majistrates etc

Some are just more honest about it than others

[Muscle_Inc]

Lets be honest here, instead of pointing fingers and criticising for what journos have to say whether they favour a particular manufacturer or just looking for something to pick on etc, from the various reviews i have come across whether i have seen it on here or from respectable car magazines there has been this consistent feedback regarding the boss motors characteristics.

Power to weight issue, Lacks low down torque, 0-100 sprint XR6T gives it a run for its money, Bit more thirsty etc etc.

I think Maybe the bottomline is some of us find the facts discomforting which might not be all that bad. Puts to rest for some people about where should the dollar be spent on, the turbo or the v8's.

Either way overall i choose the Boss cause i like to be behind a Ford with a v8 donk and giving it to holden despite who's faster or what not!

[efI_Fairmont]

Originally Posted by FalconXR6

Spot on!
People read WAY too much into car reviews by journo's.

Best example of stupid journalism would have to be with the BA/BF XR8.
When the thing first come out journo's were banging on about how much torque it had low down and that top gear at highway speeds was so useable and the engine was very flexible etc, etc. Then, as time went by, the XR8 seemed to get worse and worse and eventually ended up having no power or torque below 4000rpm. How this happened when the car remained largely unchanged has got me stuffed but people are influenced by this.

You listen to what people who have never driven a BOSS say about them.
They'll tell you that they are weak below 4000rpm.
They'll tell you that the power band is too narrow.
And they'll tell you that a 4.0 litre turbo will flog it.
And, IMO, all because they take journo reviews as gospel.

Silly.

But yes, that review on the XR8...ah, sorry XR6T was hard to relate to.

Very, very true mate. I still have copies of Motor and Wheels that review the then-new BOSS motor in the BA and went on about it's flexibility across the rev range, ability to pull from down low, etc. Then everything changed, esp with the BF and beyond reviews. Perhaps because in comparison to the LS2/3's it is, I don't know, as i've never driven an LS-powered Holden. But it does go to show that all reviews by car journalists should be taken with a big grain of salt!

In regards to this review, it's mostly positive, but this guy cannot resist the urge to put the Falcon down somewhere in his article, and praise the holden equivelent. I mean, when Drive reviewed the FG some time ago, they whinged that the buttons on the steering wheel were not illuminated, but the Commodore's was, and it goes on. But never does he put anything down on the Holden's. It's a pretty fair review of the XR6T all-in-all, but the content about the Ford V8, it's abilitiy and it's future, should have nothing to do with a review on a 6T.

My 2's worth.