Why Didn't Ford Offer A Smaller Engine? - Page 3

SYZ · 28-12-2015, 06:56 AM

I bought a 4.1 litre Falcon in 1984, and it was one of the best vehicles I've owned—among the many. Strong body, simple but functional dash and interior, well finished and put together, adequate get up and go plus good braking, zero NVH, and a great 1,000+km a day vehicle. What wasn't to like?

Point is, I bought the Falcon in preference to the Commodore because of its "big" 6 engine. As far as I'm concerned potential car buyers put far too much significance on fuel consumption—then and also today. Do I really care if I spend $100 per week on petrol, or $120? Nope; it's a relatively minor point of consideration when one considers all the other unavoidable associated costs of keeping a vehicle on the road, including depreciation, insurance, servicing etc.

Would I have bought the Falcon if it had a 3.3 litre donk? Nope.

**Mechan1k** · 28-12-2015, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I think you will find South Korean auto workers make more money than most other countries. And their unions are pretty hardcore. Strike over pay nearly every year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/hyund...0GD1GD20130813

Ford did trial a lower capacity Barra 6 but it barely used any less fuel. It still had the same internal friction as the 4 litre so simply reducing capacity by a litre was barely going to do much.

Exactly ..... and even so ... the I6 mated with ZF really uses bugger all fuel.
I filled up this morning and travelled my 50km to work ... and I can tootle along and get 6.5L/100km average ... easy

No need for a smaller capacity engine .... I'd miss that torque.

Anyway ... in "real world" testing ... it was found the I6 used less than the 3.0L SIDI ... so goes to show smaller is not always better for economy.

Angeldust · 28-12-2015, 09:33 AM

my old man bought an XF with the 3.3ltr (200cu) and 5 speed manual sedan. Also fitted it with lpg. I learned to drive on this car.

Was really good with the dual fuel, extremely cheap to run, when gas was like 11c/L
Was noticeably slower off the mark than the more torque 4.1 auto, but did rev very smoothly making good hp as the revs climbed.

It was still quite adequate for the daily needs, though we never towed anything with it so I wouldn't know how that would go.

mitelsx2000 · 28-12-2015, 10:36 AM

Small engine motoers in large cars to not work.

Look at the old VL Commodores which had the either the 3-ltr Nisson engine (Which I owned one) and went very will with lots of power or the small 2-litre engine, which was to under powered for the size of the car.

If you want a small engine car, then buy a small car to go with it.

nstg8a · 28-12-2015, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitelsx2000

Small engine motoers in large cars to not work.

Look at the old VL Commodores which had the either the 3-ltr Nisson engine (Which I owned one) and went very will with lots of power or the small 2-litre engine, which was to under powered for the size of the car.

If you want a small engine car, then buy a small car to go with it.

Aussie never got the rb20 powered vl, or the 4 cylinder vn so there's probably a few reading your comment thinking 'huh'?

castellan · 28-12-2015, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitelsx2000

Small engine motoers in large cars to not work.

Look at the old VL Commodores which had the either the 3-ltr Nisson engine (Which I owned one) and went very will with lots of power or the small 2-litre engine, which was to under powered for the size of the car.

If you want a small engine car, then buy a small car to go with it.

We never got the 2.0L VL in Australia.

I had all the HQ Holden engines first I got a 173 then a 202 then a 253 and then a 308 and did around 50.000KM a year in them all and the 308 was the best one for me on fuel and if it was any difference in fuel over the year, I found out it was not worth my time bothering with the smaller engines.

Sure everyone claimed that bigger engines used more fuel, but most did not have a clue, sure around town it would but not on the highway or how I did most of my driving.
Towing a trailer with a 6 cyl was only for fools a 308 would better it on fuel any day.
Cruising at from around 140KM/H to 180 KM/H the 308 wins on fuel any day easy.

Olbucko · 28-12-2015, 11:50 AM

the problem with the 4 Cyl Commodore was the engine, it was a gutless, dated slug, and made less that 60 kw, the 2 litre SOHC four fitted to TC-TF Cortina's was a modern design that revved, made 72 kw, gave adequate performance, and good economy if not driven hard. It gave the Cortina the same performance and better economy than the 3.3 Litre six.

XG_Falcon · 28-12-2015, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by castellan

We never got the 2.0L VL in Australia.

I had all the HQ Holden engines first I got a 173 then a 202 then a 253 and then a 308 and did around 50.000KM a year in them all and the 308 was the best one for me on fuel and if it was any difference in fuel over the year, I found out it was not worth my time bothering with the smaller engines.

Sure everyone claimed that bigger engines used more fuel, but most did not have a clue, sure around town it would but not on the highway or how I did most of my driving.
Towing a trailer with a 6 cyl was only for fools a 308 would better it on fuel any day.
Cruising at from around 140KM/H to 180 KM/H the 308 wins on fuel any day easy.

The 186 will always be my favourite. Sure an old Red motor won't smoke anyone at the lights but you can rebuild the entire donk with a Bic pen and a couple of paperclips. Pretty good on fuel for it's day too.

malazn mafia · 28-12-2015, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nstg8a

Wasn't ef/el the last to outsell Commodores?

Ba falcon topped commodore in 2004 for a month or two IIRC. And rightly so, the commodore was no match for the BA.

mitelsx2000 · 28-12-2015, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XG_Falcon

The 186 will always be my favourite. Sure an old Red motor won't smoke anyone at the lights but you can rebuild the entire donk with a Bic pen and a couple of paperclips. Pretty good on fuel for it's day too.

Yep liked the the 173/179 &186. Good Aussie work horses!!! Never failed its owners.

nstg8a · 28-12-2015, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olbucko

the problem with the 4 Cyl Commodore was the engine, it was a gutless, dated slug, and made less that 60 kw, the 2 litre SOHC four fitted to TC-TF Cortina's was a modern design that revved, made 72 kw, gave adequate performance, and good economy if not driven hard. It gave the Cortina the same performance and better economy than the 3.3 Litre six.

I had heaps of 2.0l mk4/5 cortinas before I bought another six powered falcon, and easily the falcon was cheaper to run than the cortinas.

I found with the falcon you just didn't have to drive them hard, whereas you were always flogging the cortina and that big Webber drank hard...

Having said that, I'd love to bring a nice mint mk5 sport over from nz, if there's any clean ones left.
They were a great looking car in the day

Itsme · 28-12-2015, 05:48 PM

Falcons had either V8 or I6 engines, who in their right mind would buy a falcon with a smaller engine?
The falcon Ecoboost 2.0 litre engine was a sales flop!

**Mechan1k** · 28-12-2015, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nstg8a

I had heaps of 2.0l mk4/5 cortinas before I bought another six powered falcon, and easily the falcon was cheaper to run than the cortinas.

I found with the falcon you just didn't have to drive them hard, whereas you were always flogging the cortina and that big Webber drank hard...

Having said that, I'd love to bring a nice mint mk5 sport over from nz, if there's any clean ones left.
They were a great looking car in the day

Parents had a TE/MkIV 6GL X-Pak when I was a little kid. 1100-1200kg with the 250 X-flow in it ... they really moved for a vehicle in 1980.

So hard to find anything now. Although there is a mint one on Gumtree not far from me .. auto though. Best one I have seen though.

nstg8a · 28-12-2015, 06:42 PM

I know of one v6 ghia siting under blankets, but the dude won't sell, his dad bought it brand new and then passed it on when he could no longer drive.
As far as I know it gets the odd drive round the block every now and then and that's it. Last time I saw it there was not a mark on it. Absolutely like new.

Olbucko · 28-12-2015, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitelsx2000

Yep liked the the 173/179 &186. Good Aussie work horses!!! Never failed its owners.

What about the bloody fibre timing wheel that failed without warning that had to be removed and refitted with a press, why couldn't it be bolted on like a Falcon.

Qwerty321 · 28-12-2015, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trublu

Falcons had either V8 or I6 engines, who in their right mind would buy a falcon with a smaller engine?
The falcon Ecoboost 2.0 litre engine was a sales flop!

That's cause Ford didn't do any marketing at all for them. I've never seen a single ad for a Ecoboost in NZ, and I only realised they had them when someone mentioned them on the forum here. Everyone just thinks Falcons are 4L or V8.

And yes on highway driving you're better off with the I6 or V8 (effectively same fuel consumption but tonnes more power) but no matter how you look at it, those engines will murder your wallet in city. I live in Auckland right now and I'm paying the price (quite literally). I don't mind too much cause I'm moving south in 2 months and bought the car knowing that. It runs great on gas out of town, so no problems there.

Most families have multiple cars, one long distance capable "primary" car and a couple city runners for everyone else (wife, kids etc.). Now the primary car you could justify a big engine for, but if your buying a 4L or a V8 for just running around town you're either impractical, too rich for your own good, or a complete idiot.

With the correct marketing Ford could have made the Ecoboost sell as a economical city runner. Kind of like the Chrysler 200 is to the Chrysler 300. A younger brother to the big highway cruiser.

Someone mentioned this earlier when we were talking about LPG and I think this is precisely where Ford (and Holden) went wrong. Rather than listen to the market, PR tried to educate them. When the market went "I want a cheap running car give me an economical engine", Ford/Holden went "Here have LPG, trust me you think it's unsafe but it actually is safe". Yes LPG may be safe, but 90% of the idiots on the road aren't going to listen to you. They're just going to take their money elsewhere.

BENT_8 · 29-12-2015, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qwerty321

Yes LPG may be safe, but 90% of the idiots on the road aren't going to listen to you. They're just going to take their money elsewhere.

Thats it in a nut shell, 90% are idiots, or ignorant at least.

Theres nothing wrong with a properly maintained LPG powered car and when dedicated gas and not a comprimised dual fuel system, they are brilliant.

Im getting 14l/100 in mine at the moment and thats 70/30 suburban/country and including the A/C as its been unseasonally hot here in SA this summer.
@ 69.9cpl thats $9.65 per 100k for a full sized wagon with power to spare.
In comparison, the wifes Sportivo Camry gets 9l/100 and @ $1.20 is $10.80 per 100k and gutless in comparison.

Just because the majority of people dont know a good thing when it is under their noses, doesnt mean its not a good thing.

Qwerty321 · 29-12-2015, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Thats it in a nut shell, 90% are idiots, or ignorant at least.

Theres nothing wrong with a properly maintained LPG powered car and when dedicated gas and not a comprimised dual fuel system, they are brilliant.

Im getting 14l/100 in mine at the moment and thats 70/30 suburban/country and including the A/C as its been unseasonally hot here in SA this summer.
@ 69.9cpl thats $9.65 per 100k for a full sized wagon with power to spare.
In comparison, the wifes Sportivo Camry gets 9l/100 and @ $1.20 is $10.80 per 100k and gutless in comparison.

Just because the majority of people dont know a good thing when it is under their noses, doesnt mean its not a good thing.

At the end of the day idiots make up majority of the market, and if you want to make sales you've got to cater to the majority.

I still think the Falcon should have been the upscale flagship model and a mid sized sedan with a smaller engine should have been Ford Australia's high sales vehicle. A Falcon for the enthusiasts and idk an Australian designed Mondeo for the average consumer.

ryanstev · 29-12-2015, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qwerty321

idk an Australian designed Mondeo for the average consumer.

Ford should have brought back the Telstar.

Just take the Mondeo, change the headlights and taillights and not worry about anything else.

Davehoos · 29-12-2015, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olbucko

What about the bloody fibre timing wheel that failed without warning that had to be removed and refitted with a press, why couldn't it be bolted on like a Falcon.

You need to know how to do the job. It was the same as 80 Km [50k mile] service. carby, distributor, lifters, valve regrind and cork gaskets. It about the same point that the car was traded in. like a cross flow falcon with a stuffed cyl head. or a Mitsubishi with balance chain.

Alloy gear was part of customer options, like the steel gear on the distributor , classed as high mileage kit or sales reps, like different gear ratio oil coolers electric fans and viscous clutch fan--etc.

In Newcastle-NSW, there was lot of demand for smaller capacity easy to drive under 80km/h vehicles. that will never see 100 000Km. Air conditioners was only to cool the vehicle if you couldn't get under cover car park.