3L - 195kw, 620nm, 6.1L/100km - Build a bloody Turbo Diesel Falcon already!

[kpcart]

From Wheels: http://motoring.ninemsn.com.au/cars/...class-facelift

the new c-class mercedes (nearly as heavy as a falcon these days):
"Its upgraded 3.0-litre turbo-diesel V6 now produces 195kW and 620Nm (up 30kW/110Nm), yet the slurp drops to 6.1L/100km (ADR average, down from 7.4)"

I have driven a 2007 merc c-class. it had a 1.9L 4cyl turbo diesel which made 400nm torque! and felt super smooth with the torque and quite rapid.

why cant they at least put that 2.7/3.0L jaguar turbo-diesel into the falcon like they have with the territory? imagine how sweet and smooth it would be to drive a 500nm falcon that only uses about 7-8l of diesel per 100km?

[fordv8!]

should have been done already!!!!!

[98AUXR6]

Originally Posted by kpcart

From Wheels: http://motoring.ninemsn.com.au/cars/...class-faceliftwhy cant they at least put that 2.7/3.0L jaguar turbo-diesel into the falcon like they have with the territory? imagine how sweet and smooth it would be to drive a 500nm falcon that only uses about 7-8l of diesel per 100km?

I don't think Ford owns Jaguar anymore so can't pinch their stuff, like the ZF! Good idea though!

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by 98AUXR6

I don't think Ford owns Jaguar anymore so can't pinch their stuff, like the ZF! Good idea though!

The V6 Diesel was developed and built at Dagenham diesel, it was started early in the piece by
Jaguar/land Rover as a Joint effort with PSA (Peugeot) but I'm pretty sure Ford owns it now.

The reason FoA has access to the 2.7 diesel is because costs have been sufficiently amortized
to allow it use at a reasonable pierce. Sure the 3.0 V6 single and twin turbos are available but
I think the horrendous cost of the newer designed hardware like injectors, turbo and engine
programming keep them J/LR exclusive for now.

Heck, I'd be happy with in a Falcon that used the 2.2 I-4 from T6 Ranger/Mondeo,
if that couldn't average around 6 l/100 km with 400nm torque then I'm not here....

[DanielXR8]

Originally Posted by jpd80

The V6 Diesel was developed and built at Dagenham diesel, it was started early in the piece by
Jaguar/land Rover as a Joint effort with PSA (Peugeot) but I'm pretty sure Ford owns it now.

The reason FoA has access to the 2.7 diesel is because costs have been sufficiently amortized
to allow it use at a reasonable pierce. Sure the 3.0 V6 single and twin turbos are available but
I think the horrendous cost of the newer designed hardware like injectors, turbo and engine
programming keep them J/LR exclusive for now.

Heck, I'd be happy with in a Falcon that used the 2.2 I-4 from T6 Ranger/Mondeo,
if that couldn't average around 6 l/100 km with 400nm torque then I'm not here....

I suspect another reason for the 2.7, was they had already started and then aborted work on getting this engine into Terri years ago, when the project was cancelled. Putting the new 3.0 engine in would have wasted that earlier expenditure as they would have to start from scratch again. Add on what you say about getting the 2.7 cheap and no one at the meeting is going to suggest the 3 litre was a better idea. Accountants would kill them.

Dan

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by DanielXR8

I suspect another reason for the 2.7, was they had already started and then aborted work on getting this engine into Terri years ago, when the project was cancelled. Putting the new 3.0 engine in would have wasted that earlier expenditure as they would have to start from scratch again. Add on what you say about getting the 2.7 cheap and no one at the meeting is going to suggest the 3 litre was a better idea. Accountants would kill them.

Dan

I'll be interested to see the actual uptake of V6 diesels in Territory sales,
like a lot of things, Ford may be watching for positive signs before committing
to anything more regarding Falcon engine variants, they've made their choices
so now let's see what comes back....

[Kryton]

Been saying it for years - Diesel Falcon.
Theres the usual nay sayers, who dont get the point but there always will be.
Id happily buy a TD Falcon, however, since it doesnt exist, i wont be buying Ford for my next car.

[Jim Goose]

Great idea, but there is still the stigma of the noisy/ slow diesel which people still think exists.

Not to mention how diesel fuel here is more expensive then unleaded, despite the fact that it is less refined. People will baulk at the cost of fuel and when you work out the average fuel cost with the petrol version it cancels each other out

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Great idea, but there is still the stigma of the noisy/ slow diesel which people still think exists.

Such a stigma that Fiesta, Focus, Mondeo, Territory all offer diesel variants
yet Ford's "volume selling" Falcon misses out....

Ecoboost I-4 is kinda like second prize....

[spvd02]

Falcon doesn't need diesel, end of story. It's hardly justifiable in the Territory as it is so why would you put it in the Falcon. For once be happy with what's on offer instead of always looking for alternatives. The I6 on offer is superb; now go and enjoy it. If anything, it's the EcoLPI we should be looking forward to, as it will cost far less to run than a diesel option in the Falcon.

Diesel owners seem to love talking about big numbers, but those numbers are only impressive on paper. In the real world, the massive numbers do not translate into performance. So what exactly do they translate into? Nothing more than bragging rights.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by spvd02

Falcon doesn't need diesel, end of story. It's hardly justifiable in the Territory as it is so why would you put it in the Falcon.

Hardly justifiable?
Ford expects 50% of sales to be diesel, they wouldn't bother if it wasn't worth the effort.

Ford is obviously putting all its money on EcoLPI and Ecoboost I-4 for Falcon buyers,
I hope they are right...

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by spvd02

Falcon doesn't need diesel, end of story. It's hardly justifiable in the Territory as it is so why would you put it in the Falcon. For once be happy with what's on offer instead of always looking for alternatives. The I6 on offer is superb; now go and enjoy it. If anything, it's the EcoLPI we should be looking forward to, as it will cost far less to run than a diesel option in the Falcon.

Diesel owners seem to love talking about big numbers, but those numbers are only impressive on paper. In the real world, the massive numbers do not translate into performance. So what exactly do they translate into? Nothing more than bragging rights.

It seems you have not driven a modern turbo diesel. Why do you think that BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar etc are selling so many diesels? Why is it that 70% of new cars sold in europe are diesel? Could it be because they offer fuel economy, torque and lowered emissions improvements?

The extra expense of the diesel sale price is more than made up for when you consider the better fuel consumption, the higher resale of the diesel and the fact that many modern petrol cars (particularly turbo models) will not run on anything less than 95 octane fuel (which is equivalent price to diesel).

For those that don't think a diesel can perform, take a BMW 330D for a drive, 180 kw and 520 nm makes these things move. Also lets not forget what Audi has done with one in a certain 24 hr race.

Ford needs to do something to get with the times, a fuel consumption of 9.9L/100km is not considered good anymore, not when you look at the figures of its competitors.

A diesel offers better consumption and more torque than a larger size petrol, what's not to love in a large family car? Considering Falcon sales in the last few years, it seems they are doing something wrong, a real shame as the rest of the car is so good.

[Kryton]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

It seems you have not driven a modern turbo diesel. Why do you think that BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar etc are selling so many diesels? Why is it that 70% of new cars sold in europe are diesel? Could it be because they offer fuel economy, torque and lowered emissions improvements?

The extra expense of the diesel sale price is more than made up for when you consider the better fuel consumption, the higher resale of the diesel and the fact that many modern petrol cars (particularly turbo models) will not run on anything less than 95 octane fuel (which is equivalent price to diesel).

For those that don't think a diesel can perform, take a BMW 330D for a drive, 180 kw and 520 nm makes these things move. Also lets not forget what Audi has done with one in a certain 24 hr race.

Ford needs to do something to get with the times, a fuel consumption of 9.9L/100km is not considered good anymore, not when you look at the figures of its competitors.

A diesel offers better consumption and more torque than a larger size petrol, what's not to love in a large family car? Considering Falcon sales in the last few years, it seems they are doing something wrong, a real shame as the rest of the car is so good.

Exactly.
Some just dont want to listen though.

[SteveJH]

Nothing wrong with the Mondeo diesel. Looked at the average fuel consumption on dads when I was driving it the other day (probably never been reset) and it has an average consumption of I think 6.1l/100km. Admittedly probably 90% Highway.

Only thing I don't like about it is the bit of lag, but its still got plenty of torque/power for overtaking.

[Big Bird 17]

With all the R and D at their disposal you would think that Ford could do what Audi do in the diesel stakes or are their bean counters too profit driven and don't want to spend the dollars.

[spvd02]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

It seems you have not driven a modern turbo diesel. Why do you think that BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar etc are selling so many diesels? Why is it that 70% of new cars sold in europe are diesel? Could it be because they offer fuel economy, torque and lowered emissions improvements?

The extra expense of the diesel sale price is more than made up for when you consider the better fuel consumption, the higher resale of the diesel and the fact that many modern petrol cars (particularly turbo models) will not run on anything less than 95 octane fuel (which is equivalent price to diesel).

For those that don't think a diesel can perform, take a BMW 330D for a drive, 180 kw and 520 nm makes these things move. Also lets not forget what Audi has done with one in a certain 24 hr race.

Ford needs to do something to get with the times, a fuel consumption of 9.9L/100km is not considered good anymore, not when you look at the figures of its competitors.

A diesel offers better consumption and more torque than a larger size petrol, what's not to love in a large family car? Considering Falcon sales in the last few years, it seems they are doing something wrong, a real shame as the rest of the car is so good.

Why is it that high-end diesels are always referred when trying to prove they are so good? I could refer to a Bugatti Veyron to prove how good petrols are, but it's obviously pointless. A TD from Audi, BMW, or Mercedes would double Falcon's price.

Comparing apples with apples, Caradvice by far preferred the RWD petrol Terry over any of the Diesels. The same would be the case with the Falcon, were it available. Fuel economy difference? There was only 2L/100km difference, the petrol using just over 10L/100, despite the fact the engines were in a heavy car (petrol is supposed to be thirsty under load?)

So yes, in reality its hard to justify the advantage of owning a diesel version of the Falcon. For Ford to produce one would make a lot of sense, as there are many diesel die-hards who would buy it just because it has a turbo-diesel. In case you hadn't noticed, I would not be craving for one.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by spvd02

The I6 on offer is superb; now go and enjoy it. If anything, it's the EcoLPI we should be looking forward to, as it will cost far less to run than a diesel option in the Falcon.

private buyers by and large DONT WANT LPG. they do want diesel.

technical arguments aside, Ford needs to follow the market, not try and convince buyers to shift their thinking.

[spvd02]

Originally Posted by b0son

private buyers by and large DONT WANT LPG. they do want diesel.

technical arguments aside, Ford needs to follow the market, not try and convince buyers to shift their thinking.

True, but what if the private buyers come to their senses and DO have a shift in their thinking, which is inevitable in the long-run when it becomes common knowledge that LPG is definitely the more economical choice in Australia?

All that LPG has needed is for the technology to catch up, and now it has, making it a more favourable option than diesel. The buying public do generally want what's best, and it shouldn't take too long for them to realise that in Aus, it's LPG.

Think of why there was a shift to diesel in the first place - then work out what the next shift might be: Could there be a movement away from diesel in favour of LPG? I am sure the case for diesel will weaken over time, esp. as it becomes more expensive to run (e.g. urea injection).

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by spvd02

True, but what if the private buyers come to their senses and DO have a shift in their thinking, which is inevitable in the long-run when it becomes common knowledge that LPG is definitely the more economical choice in Australia?

All that LPG has needed is for the technology to catch up, and now it has, making it a more favourable option than diesel. The buying public do generally want what's best, and it shouldn't take too long for them to realise that in Aus, it's LPG.

Think of why there was a shift to diesel in the first place - then work out what the next shift might be: Could there be a movement away from diesel in favour of LPG? I am sure the case for diesel will weaken over time, esp. as it becomes more expensive to run (e.g. urea injection).

LPG (at this current point in time) is not the most economical everywhere in Australia (mind you it is in the largest portion of the market).

The future will show how our fuel preference will be viewed. But seeing as China are planning on moving away from Australia in about 10 years it may become the best choice. Or as a free market it will become quite expensive. But all car companies need to keep their options open for different markets.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by spvd02

True, but what if the private buyers come to their senses and DO have a shift in their thinking, which is inevitable in the long-run when it becomes common knowledge that LPG is definitely the more economical choice in Australia?

Oil companies aren't stupid, if a lot of petrol/diesel customers switch to gas
then they will bump the price up to protect their own income, just like diesel.

The other problem with LPG is that it creates far more CO2 than diesel due
to the amount of fuel consumed, if the government is serious about carbon
reduction they should be steering people away from LPG not towards it.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by jpd80

.

The other problem with LPG is that it creates far more CO2 than diesel due
to the amount of fuel consumed, if the government is serious about carbon
reduction they should be steering people away from LPG not towards it.

Ah, no. The amount of CO2 produced in burning lpg per unit of energy is less than petrol, about 10-15%.

You can confirm this idea by looking at the grams of co2/km consumption for the factory equipped lpg gas vehicles, though in practice with engines that aren't optimised for lpg(still run petrol as well) the figures are only about 2-3% better

You are confusing the volume of lpg used with its carbon content and energy value.

Its a less dense fuel than petrol, therefore more volume is used to go the same distance as petrol. However, when the mass of lpg versus the mass of petrol used in fuel consumption, lpg uses less, lpg has slightly more energy per kg.

[Polyal]

I wonder what the uptake on AWD is with the Terry? Perhaps this is part of the reason why you cant get certain configs.

IMO the biggest sellers will be RWD Diesel TX and TS. To start off with anyway.

spvd02 I think you will find the majority of diesel people, or people looking at diesel, are more worried about the L/100 than the 0-100. Thats the reason. If you want performance you dont buy a diesel Terry, you buy a XR6T.

Yes there are some diesels that are marketed as performance cars, and most do well, but they dont give the same feel even though the end result might be as good.

A diesel Falcon ute would be a better prospect, but id love to see the 2.7 in a sedan aswell. All this talk about it being old is nonsense, if it returns the figures needed then who cares. Some V8's still use pushrods but they get the job done.

[Polyal]

Gecko the euro diesel thing is correct, but they also have price incentives buy it in the first place, I cant remember the exact difference but it was a bit cheaper than PULP and you get better mileage...not a hard choice.

You dont even need to drive a sporty diesel to see they are lively, just get used to swapping cogs a bit more and not revving them out.

In saying that once cruising the torque is good, you can leave it in top gear and overtake in most cases.

[mik]

the Benz with the powerful diesel with discounted price of $84000 is in a whole different price range, i don`t think a falcon would be cheap with this engine and an upgraded driveline to handle it.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by mik

the Benz with the powerful diesel with discounted price of $84000 is in a whole different price range, i don`t think a falcon would be cheap with this engine and an upgraded driveline to handle it.

You mean about the same price as a TX RWD Diesel?

[Franco Cozzo]

Its a bit concerning they decided on that 2.7L diesel V6 for the Territory, its fairly old and its power/torque figures suck for the amount of cylinders/displacement it has compared to more recent rivals like Kia and their 2.2L 4 cylinder diesel Sorento (145kW and 436Nm of torque)

But hey, old diesel is better than no diesel.

Something like the BMW 330D would be awesome, XR6TD or something, lol.

[mik]

possibly, but i think we are talking diesel in a falcon.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by mik

possibly, but i think we are talking diesel in a falcon.

Well then work backwards.

Territory = as good as falcon

Ford get the RWD TX Diesel RRP of ~$43k

The falcon should be cheaper as its based off a car that moves more units (well for now)....just saying that a Falcon diesel in the same spec as a TX terry should be cheaper if your looking at "how much would it cost".

[flappist]

Yep diesels are a huge success in Australia.

Other than the 4WD heroes just how many diesel cars do you ACTUALLY see on the road?

After all with every brand selling them and they being the true messiah they should be everywhere.........must be using stealth mode.

In the real world the cost of your car is (initial purchase + fuel + maintenance + admin costs - resale) / km covered.

So if your car costs more and is more expensive to maintain and you do not do squillions of kilometres (which very few here actually do) then owning a diesel is MORE EXPENSIVE than owning a similar petrol, if it were not the fleets would be full of them......

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yep diesels are a huge success in Australia.

Other than the 4WD heroes just how many diesel cars do you ACTUALLY see on the road?

After all with every brand selling them and they being the true messiah they should be everywhere.........must be using stealth mode.

In the real world the cost of your car is (initial purchase + fuel + maintenance + admin costs - resale) / km covered.

So if your car costs more and is more expensive to maintain and you do not do squillions of kilometres (which very few here actually do) then owning a diesel is MORE EXPENSIVE than owning a similar petrol, if it were not the fleets would be full of them......

Agreed it makes less sense here, but in the Territory's case the fuel consumption difference is pretty large and most normal families hold onto there cars for say a min 3 years atleast.

Havent done the maths but its the same payback period like a LPG install, just need to work out the kms you do.