Why Didn't Ford Offer A Smaller Engine?

[BENT_8]

Falcon didnt need a smaller engine, it got dedicated gas which cut the fuel bill in half.
The problem was the stigma surrounding gas and it never took off really.

I'll be hoest, i was sceptical for years, then i took the plunge and bought one. Full sized family wagon, pleanty of power and torque, Camry economy with a range of 1000k's.

[outback_ute]

The Commodore nearly got the 2.0/2.3 Saab turbo motor for sales in the Asian export markets, and apparently it was better than the 3.8L V6 in all aspects except costs. The project was only killed to switch to Opel 2.5 V6 engines instead, to help prop them up.

I don't think that a smaller capacity version of the inline 6 would have done a great deal other than look good on paper, the excellent torque curve of the 4.0 gives it good real-world performance and you would lose that without dropping any weight. Back in 2002 Ford didn't have any viable options like Ecoboost or even a large 4-cyl engine; I wonder if they tried the 2.3L Mazda?

Not switching to the global V6 was really the nail in the coffin for Falcon, integrating it with the global engine program may have allowed exports. I agree with the view that the Australian market is now too fragmented to support manufacturing, vehicles do not sell in enough volume.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

This question implies that more Falcon (and Commodore) sales would have saved local production. It wouldn't have; it was about cost of production in Australia versus Thailand, China. Korea etc and the small scale of Australian manufacturing operations, distance from other markets and the fact that Australians car buyers shop by price before loyalty to Oz made. It also has a little bit to do with fact that we do not punish unfair completion fro places like China and South Korea where wages costs are reduced by Government suppression of trade unions.

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.

[Sprintey]

Originally Posted by ryanstev

Rather than smaller engines, Ford should have sold a smaller car.

I like the Falcon, but if I was to buy a new car, it'd be a hatchback, I'm done with sedans, unfortunately the Falcon stationwagon is simply huge and way too much car for me.

Falcons in general are way too heavy, they have tech that I don't need, which makes them even heavier and they're expensive.

Ford should have considered a basic hatchback version, eg, the stationwagon but smaller wheel base and less boot.
I would have loved a V8 hatch or even just a 4 litre straight 6 hatch.

Ford and Holden were going after the exact same, shrinking markets, the Australian made sedan, stationwagon, ute. One of them could have tried something different and had the market to themselves.

Maybe this?

http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/A_5523...wsarticle.html

Or perhaps even a hatch version of this:

http://www.holden.com.au/about/galle...2004toranatt36

[Sprintey]

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.

Is that also the story with the Holden 3.6 and 3.0? The 3.0 chews as much as the 3.6 from many reviews. It goes back to the days of 186/161 and 202/173, probably exists to get under certain fuel economy benchmarks (lab tests) and to provide a halo to the bigger 3.6 up the model range.

Base ute just went back to 3.6.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

Is that also the story with the Holden 3.6 and 3.0? The 3.0 chews as much as the 3.6 from many reviews. It goes back to the days of 186/161 and 202/173, probably exists to get under certain fuel economy benchmarks (lab tests) and to provide a halo to the bigger 3.6 up the model range.

Base ute just went back to 3.6.

That is sort of true of the 3.0L and 3.6L commodore on the highway.

The 161 and 173 could get 30 MPG at 50 MPH on the highway but the 186 and even more so the 202 could not cut that, the 202 was about 27 MPG at best.

You could get 30 MPG out of a XD 3.3L alloy head manual at 100 KM/H all other 200ci falcons before could not do that.

[Kieron]

Sales of full size sedans in the US have been falling for a long time. Taurus sales for instance where almost 300,000+/year pre 2005, last year it was 63,000 which is roughly what the BA Falcon did overall.

Throw in the 'One Ford' drive that was introduced around 2008ish (Taurus did circa 53K in 2014) and straight away, one full size Ford platform had to go. Taurus was/is built on a world platform shared with other models, Falcon on a unique platform.

Doesn't matter if the Falcon ran a 4 potter getting 4l/100 economy and sold 6,000/month, Falcon was never going to survive.

[FPV GTHO]

Taurus never sold 300k+ units as a large car, it was midsize and it's replacement in that sector, Fusion, has been doing 200k+ with Camry and Accord.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

This question implies that more Falcon (and Commodore) sales would have saved local production. It wouldn't have; it was about cost of production in Australia versus Thailand, China. Korea etc and the small scale of Australian manufacturing operations, distance from other markets and the fact that Australians car buyers shop by price before loyalty to Oz made. It also has a little bit to do with fact that we do not punish unfair completion fro places like China and South Korea where wages costs are reduced by Government suppression of trade unions.

It was actually far more about the fact the Govco refuse to support car manufacturing, as they were allready one of the worst supporters of local car production in the world. The money those big three companies bring thru Australia would be worth billions to Australia's economy. Now it'll just be some small engineering departments

Very valid point tho! But proper support could easily offset budget shortfalls due to car per car profit.

[1TUFFUTE]

Don't kid yourself guys.......if For Aus had of got a clear govco support years n years ago.......the story and progress of what we see Now with Ford and the falcon n Terri would be Faaaar different! As soon as the future looked bleak at Ford, as far as govco support goes.......the brakes were applied. Just like a smart company should do.(when a dumb government can't see the forrest for the trees)

[EB#]

May as well put figures up on the board......

Ford Falcon Sales Numbers History
1982 - 84,184
1992 - 67,044
2002 - 54,629
2003 - 73,220
2004 - 65,384
2005 - 53,080
2006 - 42,390
2007 - 33,941
2008 - 31,936
2009 - 31,023
2010 - 29,516
2011 - 18,741
2012 - 14,036
2013 - 10,610
2014 - 9,134
2015 - ?

[commodorenutt]

Surely the Falcon sales are higher than that? Are fleet sales included in that list?
Or is it just fleet sales numbers?
(Clarification - not doubting the last 10 years, just the period prior to that).

In the mid 90s I worked for a component manufacturer, and we were doing 385 engine sets/day (5 day week) and occasionally it bounced to 500 sets/day (4.0L components, not V8s).

I was sure it was around 100,000 cars/year or more in the EF-EL-AU period.

Holden at one stage were doing 500 VT Commodores/day, some days peaking at nearly 800, and Ford wasn't far behind them on the sales charts.

Quick maths = 385/day = approx 2000 cars/week = approx 100,000 cars/year.

[FPV GTHO]

When Holden was doing 800 per day, Commodore was outselling Falcon between 2:1 and 3:1.

[last fairlane]

Talking of fuel economy
back in 1972 we had an XL wagon 170 Pursuit six and 3 on the tree
we went from melbourne to Darwin and back and averaged 33 MPG

20 years ago we had an EFI XF Fairmont and went from
Brisbane to Melbourne and averaged 600Ks for 60 Litres
thats 10 to the hundred = 28 MPG

now I have a midlife crisis car a 1986 Corvette
5.7 Litres with injection alloy heads and extractors
and on a 400 k trip the trip computer told me
@ 100KPH I was getting 9 ks to the hundred= about 30MPG
so technology does help
thanks John

[EB#]

Originally Posted by commodorenutt

Surely the Falcon sales are higher than that?.....

The table that I wrote in my last post was compiled from a range of online sources, but I guess the accuracy is only as good as those sources or various articles etc. Quite a few of the annual figures do seem to cross-check OK, but sometimes there may be conflicting figures and/or errors. I have not found a single source for the figures.

[Boosted8]

because only limp-wristed sissies would want a smaller engine!

thats why.

[danzvtil]

Because theres a commercial reality here that a smaller engine = Lower price. Ergo- Ford goes to the trouble of engineering and validating a small engine choice, so the car owes them MORE money than a 6 cyl even though they cost the same to make, but the consumer then wants a 20% discount for their trouble.

[Kieron]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

Taurus never sold 300k+ units as a large car, it was midsize and it's replacement in that sector, Fusion, has been doing 200k+ with Camry and Accord.

The Taurus was originally introduced to replace the full size LTD/Crown Victoria but of course the CV continued, used as a cop car/taxi quite often, the Taurus was effectively the full size family car offering. Taurus was discontinued for a while, replaced by the 500, Mulally reintroduced the Taurus, pumped it size up and dropped the CV.

My point was the US don't have as big a demand for the full size market as they once did. this includes not just the Taurus but the likes of the 300 etc.

Dropping the Falcon had nothing to do with the Gov, read the book American Icon, Alan Mullay and the fight to save FoMoCo, it will become clear why the Falcon was on the chopping block.

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by Kieron

My point was the US don't have as big a demand for the full size market as they once did. this includes not just the Taurus but the likes of the 300 etc.

I got that point, but again, Taurus is the wrong car to compare current sales to peak numbers.

[Sox]

Smaller than a 4L?
Blasphemy...

[Blue Roo]

Originally Posted by FNQracing

Ford were so complacent in relying on Fleet sales, they forgot how to compete in a rapidly changing market. Quality was too slow to improve, tech and features were way too slow to be introduced that private buyers were looking elsewhere. Falcons were (comparatively speaking) sh!te boxes compared to Japanese models until recently, I'd say around the time the EF was introduced. Prior to that, Falcons were rough and crude.

Yes. The Falcon was rough and crude. But they rugged, reliable and easy to work on (maintain). The Falcon was built for Australian conditions. That's why the Falcon is so unique.

[Angeldust]

can somebody post up the weight of the falcons from the early models to the current one?

[b0son]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Falcon didnt need a smaller engine, it got dedicated gas which cut the fuel bill in half.
The problem was the stigma surrounding gas and it never took off really.
.

The problem was the same one Ford always had. The engineers tried to dictate to the public what they should buy, not ask the market what it wanted. LPG has NEVER sold in anything other than dismal numbers among private buyers. Their failure to capitalise on diesel on both Territory and Falcon was a huge misstep.

[Davehoos]

Its not the stigma of gas-its the convenience. and not the most powerfull.
The sales package missed the mark.

We have 1 last FG LP1 ute that is to be replaced with a 4X2 Dmax. I was looking at some old records that in 2010 we had a number of falcon on the fleet.

The interesting thing this week I overheard that the choice of this years orders has more to do with maintaining a range of brands on the fleet and not picking a vehicle we can use or can service.

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by Kieron

The Taurus was originally introduced to replace the full size LTD/Crown Victoria but of course the CV continued, used as a cop car/taxi quite often, the Taurus was effectively the full size family car offering. Taurus was discontinued for a while, replaced by the 500, Mulally reintroduced the Taurus, pumped it size up and dropped the CV.

My point was the US don't have as big a demand for the full size market as they once did. this includes not just the Taurus but the likes of the 300 etc.

Dropping the Falcon had nothing to do with the Gov, read the book American Icon, Alan Mullay and the fight to save FoMoCo, it will become clear why the Falcon was on the chopping block.

I think some of that is due to how large so called "Medium" cars are today. There is nothing medium about a current model Camry, Accord, Altima or even the Fusion/Mondeo so buyers are not as inclined to spend extra on a classified "Large" car when they get all the size they need in a "medium" one.

[flooded one]

Smaller engine wouldn't of saved it. The rage now days are duel cab utes and small cars. Falcon fits into neither class.

[Windsor220]

Originally Posted by commodorenutt

Surely the Falcon sales are higher than that? Are fleet sales included in that list?
Or is it just fleet sales numbers?
(Clarification - not doubting the last 10 years, just the period prior to that).

In the mid 90s I worked for a component manufacturer, and we were doing 385 engine sets/day (5 day week) and occasionally it bounced to 500 sets/day (4.0L components, not V8s).

I was sure it was around 100,000 cars/year or more in the EF-EL-AU period.

Holden at one stage were doing 500 VT Commodores/day, some days peaking at nearly 800, and Ford wasn't far behind them on the sales charts.

Quick maths = 385/day = approx 2000 cars/week = approx 100,000 cars/year.

It was close to 100,000 a year in the EF days. EL was a high seller too from memory. It dropped off for AU though.

[nstg8a]

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

[Syndrome]

Ford got burnt on the smaller engine with the EA. In 1988 the EA had three engine options:
3.2 CFI - 97Kw
3.9 CFI - 120Kw
3.9 MPFI - 139Kw

The 3.2 was gutless and was dropped after few people wanted it. What they should have done at that time is offered the following:
3.2 with MPFI - 114Kw (estimated)
3.9 with MPFI - 139Kw

I suspect the MPFI hardware was a lot more expensive than the CFI. But by the time the EBII was released in 1992 the CFI engine was dropped and MPFI was fitted to 100% of the engines.

[Olbucko]

Originally Posted by Angeldust

can somebody post up the weight of the falcons from the early models to the current one?

The FGX is 276 mm longer, 7 mm narrower, 105 mm higher, and 373 Kg heavier than a 67 XR
.A poverty model XK would have weighed about 1050 Kg, a fully optioned XP, about 1300 Kg, most of the extra weight being due to the torque boxes welded into the front subframe and a much stronger body.
An XR weighed 1350-1500 Kg, depending wether you bough a standard 6 cyl sedan or a V8 station wagon
An XC was 1600-1700 Kg, Air alone would add an extra 100 kg.

The FGX is 1656 Kg 4 Cyl
1723 Kg 6 Cyl
1860 Kg V8

The falcon grew rapidly in the first 15 years, but in the In the last 40 years its weight has barely changed