Taurus vs Falcon specs

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Nic85

That's really... strange. Speaking as someone who just bought their first diesel car, I can honestly say I don't think I'll buy another petrol powered car. The ability to cruise at 5L/100km on the highway is brilliant, and even when you're up it, the economy is still fantastic (worst I've seen in our ASX for a tank full is 6.8L/100km)

Reading through the Territory forums, the guys in there are getting 10L/100km at WORST. For a 2.3 tonne SUV, that's pretty impressive. Just imagine what would be achievable in Falcon. It never made any sense to me why local manufacturers aren't really trying to get diesel powertrains into their cars.

I merely gave you the official line...
What Ford and the anti-diesel crowd should be looking at is the growth in diesel sedans over the past 5-6 years
and as falcon becomes far more a niche product, maybe new strategies are needed to keep it in front of buyers:

Also, don't forget that EcoLPI gives similar running costs to a low hp diesel but with outstanding performance of I-6

[Nic85]

The problem with the EcoLPI, while it's good on running costs, is it doesn't have the range of a diesel car. The LPG car will do probably 10-11L/100km at best on the highway, which in a 70L tank will get you 700km at most? The diesel doing 5L/100km will go almost 1,400kms. Twice as far.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Nic85

The problem with the EcoLPI, while it's good on running costs, is it doesn't have the range of a diesel car. The LPG car will do probably 10-11L/100km at best on the highway, which in a 70L tank will get you 700km at most? The diesel doing 5L/100km will go almost 1,400kms. Twice as far.

but if you look at $/km, lpg evens out, and they didn't have to spend a fortune on development.

whilst diesel is popular in certain markets, it is yet to really take off in the passenger car segment. i doubt ford would want to be a pioneer in this area with their financial situation.

[Nic85]

Originally Posted by prydey

but if you look at $/km, lpg evens out, and they didn't have to spend a fortune on development.

whilst diesel is popular in certain markets, it is yet to really take off in the passenger car segment. i doubt ford would want to be a pioneer in this area with their financial situation.

I understand the $/km argument, and I agree. But, you can't ignore the distance diesel cars are able to obtain from a tank, which makes commuting, particularly in this country where we have to drive so far to get anywhere, a lot more enjoyable and sensible.

The push towards diesel cars will continue in the next few years. The market is headed there now in a big way. Just look at the graphs over the last 6 years - the sway is enormous.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Nic85

The push towards diesel cars will continue in the next few years. The market is headed there now in a big way. Just look at the graphs over the last 6 years - the sway is enormous.

if it continues at the same rate, in another 6 years, diesel passenger cars will be about 270000, whilst petrol will still be around 430000.

also, as demand grows, this will have an effect on the price of diesel. some areas are cheaper than petrol but most capital cities diesel is dearer than petrol.

i can understand why ford would be reluctant to persue this avenue.

[Buntz]

Originally Posted by 4RD4TW

In the event that the next Falcon is amalgamated with the Taurus, it would be on an all-new platform anyway (a stretched version of the upcoming Mondeo/Fusion platform), therefore rendering these figures irrelevant.

There would be no point. Mondeo is about the same size anyway.

Falcon is a proper E segment car. Mondeo/Fusion and stretched for Tuarus wouldn't fit a Coyote under the hood. Falcon can take a four, six, and eight.

Falcon is down but not out.

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by prydey

whilst diesel is popular in certain markets, it is yet to really take off in the passenger car segment. i doubt ford would want to be a pioneer in this area with their financial situation.

I'm sorry, but going from the table posted above, diesels are about 30 times more popular then LPG in Passenger cars.

Diesel has shown a 523% increase over the last 6 years while LPG has had a 71% decrease.

How much more conclusive can you get?

[Buntz]

LPG decrease could be attributed to no LPG Falcon. Think LPG. Think Falcon.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

I'm sorry, but going from the table posted above, diesels are about 30 times more popular then LPG in Passenger cars.

Diesel has shown a 523% increase over the last 6 years while LPG has had a 71% decrease.

How much more conclusive can you get?

the graph above is for factory sales. lpg is largely still an aftermarket add on. only falcon and commodore offer lpg from factory. its also only really applicable to larger cars. larger cars are also tanking.

if ford offered a diesel falcon, it probably would outsell the lpg model. unfortunately thats just public perception. would it outsell petrol though and would it add sales or just replace petrol sales.

no point developing a model if its not going to add to the bottom line.

[jpd80]

Mind you, a V6 diesel Falcon with Jaguar XF like 6.4 l/100 km would be a game changer in the eyes of the public.
Tremendous low end torque and acceleration combined with incredible economy, sex on wheels....

In the end, Ford chose Ecoboost because
1) it's a four cylinder with good economy and
2) still petrol and way cheaper to option than a diesel.

[Carby]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yes it was the one that went round corners.......

The comment was about handling and a Renult Megane did 8.08 on the Nürburgring Nordschleife recently which is quicker than most RWDs short of supercars.

The points I am making are:

1) Just because something is RWD does not make it handle well or quick and just because something is FWD does not make it slow.

2) People tend to bias their opinions on cars with their favorites being perfect in every way and anything they don't personally like being hopeless, just ask anyone on street commodores how good a FG2 GT is.

The vast majority of people on here have not even sat in let alone driven most of the vehicles they have strong opinions on so all they are doing is repeating other people's repeating of other people's made up stories.

Get a grip - all things being equal - that is weight, size, suspension and power a RWD will always be better dynamically than a FWD car. Tell me I'm wrong!!! When an FWD car has the weight of the engine, Transmission and Clutch and Diff all at the front of the car do you think it can compete with a better balanced RWD car?

Proof - in the 2.0L BTCC championship the BMW's (only RWD cars) had to carry a weight penalty of 100Kg's over the class limit..........guess why!!!!

[max_torq]

In the Wet a FWD is a bit safer than the RWD, and that is probably where more accidents on the street relating to loss of control occur. Even in the races the difference between the RWD and FWD vanishes in the wet, and the FWD gets the advantage from being lighter. In the dry RWD wins basically because the oversteering rear balances the understeering front allow the car to exceed the cornering speed of a FWD limited purely by its front end grip, as well as better tyre wear due to weight distribution.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Carby

Get a grip - all things being equal - that is weight, size, suspension and power a RWD will always be better dynamically than a FWD car. Tell me I'm wrong!!! When an FWD car has the weight of the engine, Transmission and Clutch and Diff all at the front of the car do you think it can compete with a better balanced RWD car?

A little inconsistent there. If they were equal, then one wouldn't be better balanced than the other

[prydey]

and unless i'm mistaken, 99% of these cars will never see a race track.

[Carby]

Originally Posted by chevypower

A little inconsistent there. If they were equal, then one wouldn't be better balanced than the other

Huh?? I'm talking weight, engine size tyre size etc these being of equal size.

By being FWD or RWD they will obviously not be the same balance - because a FWD car is a bit like an arrow head!

More proof - look at Audi's cars - for the main part FWD, but their M3 and M5 competitors (S's and RS's) are AWD - why? Because FWD just doesn't cut the mustard at these levels of performance.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Mind you, a V6 diesel Falcon with Jaguar XF like 6.4 l/100 km would be a game changer in the eyes of the public.
Tremendous low end torque and acceleration combined with incredible economy, sex on wheels....

In the end, Ford chose Ecoboost because
1) it's a four cylinder with good economy and
2) still petrol and way cheaper to option than a diesel.

+1

I still cant believe they are trying to protect the I6, chances of that surviving long term would be lower than the Falcon name itself.

Just do it now and give it a chance to sell, instead of waiting like they did with the TDi Tez and then realizing it was a good idea after all.

I dont know where you live but I see diesel and petrol prices having very little difference. TDi gives a better range and mileage so if I had a choice for a daily then it would be TDi every time if the prices were the same.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Carby

Huh?? I'm talking weight, engine size tyre size etc these being of equal size.

By being FWD or RWD they will obviously not be the same balance - because a FWD car is a bit like an arrow head!

More proof - look at Audi's cars - for the main part FWD, but their M3 and M5 competitors (S's and RS's) are AWD - why? Because FWD just doesn't cut the mustard at these levels of performance.

Well sorry. I just took "all things being equal" to mean "all things." You should have said "some things being equal except for a better weight balance in the RWD car."

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by Carby

More proof - look at Audi's cars - for the main part FWD, but their M3 and M5 competitors (S's and RS's) are AWD - why? Because FWD just doesn't cut the mustard at these levels of performance.

And while this might sounds hyper critical, every review I have read is always the same about a S Audi...awesome car that lacks character and that "X factor". Cant say I have ever read that about a M car.

[aualright]

Originally Posted by Brazen

I dont think anyone will ever honestly think that FWD is better than RWD from a dynamics perspective (all things being equal).

Has been my opinion for as long as I remember. However, as a car enthusiast but not a racer, it is not something that particularly bothers me now.

We went from a Territory to an XC90 (runs through the front unless AWD is needed) and other than the shocking turning circle of the latter, it really doesn't matter for daily driving (miss the torque of that I6 though).

Other ride is the trusty manual AU XR8 and when I took the family to the US last year we hired both the Taurus and Mustang. The FWD Taurus was a great drive as was the leaf spring Mustang. Apparently both have inferior driving dynamics to RWD and IRS respectively but it was not noticable by me.

If you want a good driver, the first and foremost requirement is a manual box, not a 'sports' auto. Even the ZF wasn't as engaging as the long gated manual in the XR8.

****

[outback_ute]

Mustang hasn't had leaf springs for nearly 40 years

The interesting comparison between Taurus & Falcon is the interior, if it wasn't for the poor interior space in the Explorer you would think Ford US & Aus used different methods of measuring.

Taurus - Falcon
Front
headroom 991 1012
legroom 1064 1073
shoulder 1471 1523
hip room 1430 1486
Rear
headroom 960 989
legroom 968 989
shoulder 1445 1518
hip room 1417 no data
Boot space 570L 535L

[max_torq]

The taurus has a better drag coefficient. eg; sleeker shape less room inside, It could also have thicker seats and more internal features.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by prydey

what year was the maxima made? i'm sure new FWD cars have come a long way as far as driving dynamics is concerned.

you also contradict yourself regarding power + FWD.


not to mention 99% of the driving/car buying public don't drive like tools or like they are on a race track. guarantee 99% of them will never experience push or understeer, or torque steer for that matter.

Exactly...extremely good post! Too many people posting about how bad front wheel drive is are enthusiasts...which is to be expected of course...but it's foolish to think RWD is the be-all and end-all of drive design. That, or they've been bitten by some old front wheel driver with bad manners from many years ago.

I drive our sons Aurion now and then, and honestly, you can't tell which end is driving. I used to hate front drivers with a passion, but yes, I was influenced by "the bad old days" and remember torque-steering monstrosities that let you know at every turn which end was doing the driving, and affecting the steering at the same time.
The Aurion is bland wrapped in mediocre...but it has a 200kw V6 that sings nicely and doesn't appear to affect the handling or steering in any way I could tell, and believe me, I was looking. Mind you, I wasn't driving like a tool and deliberately try to get the tail out at every opportunity...maybe that's how you have to treat a modern front driver to get it to show the difference?

The public doesn't care anymore...Jeremy Clarkson might care that a car can get sideways around a closed track and destroy the rear tyres in ten minutes, but that's hardly real life and how most cars are used. In fact, if you notice on Top Gear and other motoring shows, they even get the rear out on front wheel drivers by judicious use of the handbrake...as if the primary design point of any car is that one area of show-off type driving...

That AWD Taurus looks great...I've got some brochures here from a Ford dealer in the states and it says that not only the Taurus but the Fusion are "available AWD", and the twin turbo V6 SHO model puts out 365hp. Then standard features are pretty impressive too.

[aualright]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

Mustang hasn't had leaf springs for nearly 40 years

Err...live axle? My bad.

[aualright]

Originally Posted by aualright

Has been my opinion for as long as I remember. However, as a car enthusiast but not a racer, it is not something that particularly bothers me now.

We went from a Territory to an XC90 (runs through the front unless AWD is needed) and other than the shocking turning circle of the latter, it really doesn't matter for daily driving (miss the torque of that I6 though).

Other ride is the trusty manual AU XR8 and when I took the family to the US last year we hired both the Taurus and Mustang. The FWD Taurus was a great drive as was the leaf spring Mustang. Apparently both have inferior driving dynamics to RWD and IRS respectively but it was not noticable by me.

If you want a good driver, the first and foremost requirement is a manual box, not a 'sports' auto. Even the ZF wasn't as engaging as the long gated manual in the XR8.

****

As someone pointed out, I erred in saying the Mustang has leaf springs. Should have said live axle. Despite that, I'm blowed if I could tell the difference the way I drive.

****

[bang_on33]

Originally Posted by kinksta

AWD is the winner for me. If I can get a Taurus, with similar power to the G6ET, but with AWD and more tech, I'm definitely in.

+1 right there.

[tranquilized]

RWD vs FWD vs AWD
They all have a place, all have specific advantages.


But RWD cars are the best looking.

[dimka100]

When comparing FWD vs RWD each has their own advantages and disadvantages ... However in this day and age FWD advantages are seen as more relevant and beneficial in the marketplace(i.e. cheaper to make, more interior room, less weight, better economy, safer handling characteristics …).

RWD will always have a place in sports cars and such, however for everything else pedestrian/whitegoods (yes a Falcon is pedestrian vehicle and not a sports car) FWD will continue to dominate into the future and will eventually become the focus of most makers …

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by dimka100

When comparing FWD vs RWD each has their own advantages and disadvantages ... However in this day and age FWD advantages are seen as more relevant and beneficial in the marketplace(i.e. cheaper to make, more interior room, less weight, better economy, safer handling characteristics …).

RWD will always have a place in sports cars and such, however for everything else pedestrian/whitegoods (yes a Falcon is pedestrian vehicle and not a sports car) FWD will continue to dominate into the future and will eventually become the focus of most makers …

Perhaps, but then say goodbye to pretty much all I6T sales and FPV.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by dimka100

When comparing FWD vs RWD each has their own advantages and disadvantages ... However in this day and age FWD advantages are seen as more relevant and beneficial in the marketplace(i.e. cheaper to make, more interior room, less weight, better economy, safer handling characteristics …).

RWD will always have a place in sports cars and such, however for everything else pedestrian/whitegoods (yes a Falcon is pedestrian vehicle and not a sports car) FWD will continue to dominate into the future and will eventually become the focus of most makers …

Summed it up quite nicely, although I wouldn't say FWD will eventually become the focus of most makers - it already very much is.

Originally Posted by Polyal

Perhaps, but then say goodbye to pretty much all I6T sales and FPV.

And this is what so many people dont seem to consider. Yes, the Falcon is a mainstream family car, but if it goes onto a global platform that is FWD, or AWD based on FWD, there will be no V8's, no FPV, no halo performance model. From that point on the Falcon will be barely any more exciting than a Camry.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

Mustang hasn't had leaf springs for nearly 40 years

The interesting comparison between Taurus & Falcon is the interior, if it wasn't for the poor interior space in the Explorer you would think Ford US & Aus used different methods of measuring.

Taurus - Falcon
Front
headroom 991 1012
legroom 1064 1073
shoulder 1471 1523
hip room 1430 1486
Rear
headroom 960 989
legroom 968 989
shoulder 1445 1518
hip room 1417 no data
Boot space 570L 535L

For something the size of a Fairlane the Taurus interior space is pretty pathetic compared to Falcon really. Top of the line versions weigh over 2 tonnes too. I think the yanks will be glad to ditch that platform and go to the stretched Fusion/Mondeo platform, if thats what they are doing.