New Ford Falcon Beats Holden's Commodore To Become Our First 5-Star Safety Rated Car

[nota]

Originally Posted by ford&holden

Only 90% new!

EA165 dna to the fore!

[johnstarnes]

Both those pics look great....any chance they can come to the U.S.?

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by nota

EA165 dna to the fore!

It would appear so!

http://www.carpoint.com.au/car-review/2967122.aspx


Take a look at the tables listed at the very bottom of the article, it appears the VE and aurion aren't too shabby either.

The most impressive aspect of the FGs crash test is it didn't use curtin airbags for the pole test, perhaps the boron steel has something to do with that?

[nota]

Originally Posted by ford&holden

It would appear so!

http://www.carpoint.com.au/car-review/2967122.aspx


Take a look at the tables listed at the very bottom of the article, it appears the VE and aurion aren't too shabby either.

F&H am I interpreting this right?

Originally Posted by Carpoint

Not all of ANCAP's comments were complimentary, however. Though better than the previous generation Falcon, ANCAP rated the FG's pedestrian protection at just two (out of four) stars. That said, it scored 10.95 points out of a maximum 36 -- this compares well to just 8.98 (one star) and 7.76 (one star) for the Holden and Toyota large cars.

We've heard the experts on these pages repeatedly opine that Falcon's long and tall (forward extending, etc) straight-six engine is very 'pedestrian unfriendly' and thus crucifies existing I-6 Falcon as being 'low-tech unexportable'. Apparently a low-slung V6 as used by the 'International grade' designs from Holden & Toyota is worth its weight in gold. And yet from the above quote, does it seem that Falcon - even in its 'ancient' configuration - outperforms said V6 wundercars in this regard?

The most impressive aspect of the FGs crash test is it didn't use curtain airbags for the pole test, perhaps the boron steel has something to do with that?

Seems to me it was all about thick vs smart and content vs comment. Falcon FG is yet again proving itself to be a very good product and is a credit to Ford Australia. Lets hope the market wakes up to its attributes and gives FG the success this quintessentially Australian car deserves

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by nota

F&H am I interpreting this right?

We've heard the experts on these pages repeatedly opine that Falcon's long and tall (forward extending, etc) straight-six engine is very 'pedestrian unfriendly' and thus crucifies existing I-6 Falcon as being 'low-tech unexportable'. Apparently a low-slung V6 as used by the 'International grade' designs from Holden & Toyota is worth its weight in gold. And yet from the above quote, does it seem that Falcon - even in its 'ancient' configuration - outperforms said V6 wundercars in this regard?

Seems to me it was all about thick vs smart and content vs comment. Falcon FG is yet again proving itself to be a very good product and is a credit to Ford Australia. Lets hope the market wakes up to its attributes and gives FG the success this quintessentially Australian car deserves

The VE and aurion compare well with 'other' brands in the table shown, that's what i was refering too. FG is better than all listed.

Exactly, How a long, tall inline 6cyl engine crashes well is beyond me!?

As i have stated many times before, it's not always what 'equipment' you have to work with but rather how you execute what you already have

[nota]

Originally Posted by johnstarnes

Both those pics look great....any chance they can come to the U.S.?

Not in this form, no. Though initially derived from the original 1959 left-hand-drive US Falcon, the Oz-only variant quickly evolved into a unique bird, and Ford-Australia has never built it in anything other than r/h/d.

I gather that Ford-NA has and will not allow a funding allocation for Falcon to be engineered for l/h/d markets, and most unfortunately has recently announced that the Ford Oz engine plant in Geelong (which produces Falcon's unique and excellent I-6 engine) is to soon close after 80 years of manufacture - and after half a century of continual production and refinement of the I-6.

This is especially sad seeing that the super-torquey and traditional 'easy going' straight-six defines the car, both in composition and personality. To me this decision is set to mirror the major strategic error Ford-Oz made when they decided to drop the fabulous V8 'Cleveland' 351 & 302cid engine family which was manufactured here until the early 1980s - a move which cost Falcon severely in sales and reputation.

Others see the plant closure as a 'good' thing overall for Falcon survival, in that future Falcons will then get a US-imported V6 and thus Falcon can become more fully integrated and soon consumed into Ford's global view - ironically like Falcon was at birth back in 1959.

However I am unconvinced. Vehicles derived from the original and bearing the Falcon nameplate have been produced in the US, Argentina, and Oz, with the local AU survivor quickly morphing and evolving into the clear superior among its peers. "What made it different makes it better!" Not in future alas, with the now seventh-generation Falcon destined to become a far more homogenised product

[mikmak]

On a side note, has anyone else noted the similarities between the FG and the AU? The design has reverted back towards the more triangular shapes of the AU, most notably at the rear.

[aldw]

Ultimately building Falcons in the US sharing the Mustang platform would help save the Falcon in Australia cost-wise long term, of which Ford really needs to do.

[mikmak]

That would be a great reward for Ford Australia, keeping the RWD flag flying for all those years, even taking the step to IRS ...in the 20th century for cheaper development costs than the Mustang metal rod rear end

[Robert Ryan]

However I am unconvinced. Vehicles derived from the original and bearing the Falcon nameplate have been produced in the US, Argentina, and Oz, with the local AU survivor quickly morphing and evolving into the clear superior among its peers. "What made it different makes it better!" Not in future alas, with the now seventh-generation Falcon destined to become a far more homogenised product

A case of a company in severe difficulties calling the wrong shots about a local product from their Detroit Headquarters.

[chinamonty]

We've heard the experts on these pages repeatedly opine that Falcon's long and tall (forward extending, etc) straight-six engine is very 'pedestrian unfriendly' and thus crucifies existing I-6 Falcon as being 'low-tech unexportable'. Apparently a low-slung V6 as used by the 'International grade' designs from Holden & Toyota is worth its weight in gold. And yet from the above quote, does it seem that Falcon - even in its 'ancient' configuration - outperforms said V6 wundercars in this reg


This pedestrian unfriendly thing erks me. A Mack truck is hugely pedestrian unfriendly but so what. I think it is wrong to design cars so they are pedestrian friendly. You should be eductaing people and perhaps seperating their activities enough for it not to matter most of the time. It is an unecessary burden and expense in my mind. Look at the road toll in state like Victoria in Australia where road saefty has a large focus. It would be interesting to see how many lives they think may have been saved by this pedestrian friendly desinging. I would doubt any but if any it would be a low number. Educate not legislate.

[benroethig]

Originally Posted by aldw

Ultimately building Falcons in the US sharing the Mustang platform would help save the Falcon in Australia cost-wise long term, of which Ford really needs to do.

And would make its future a little more secure.

[Slick_Holden]

Did anyone else miss the crash data on the FG's A pillars??.

This was an interesting one for me to view, However, There was no data on the A pillar crash test?.

[Ach]

Not in this form, no. Though initially derived from the original 1959 left-hand-drive US Falcon, the Oz-only variant quickly evolved into a unique bird, and Ford-Australia has never built it in anything other than r/h/d.

I gather that Ford-NA has and will not allow a funding allocation for Falcon to be engineered for l/h/d markets, and most unfortunately has recently announced that the Ford Oz engine plant in Geelong (which produces Falcon's unique and excellent I-6 engine) is to soon close after 80 years of manufacture - and after half a century of continual production and refinement of the I-6.

This is especially sad seeing that the super-torquey and traditional 'easy going' straight-six defines the car, both in composition and personality. To me this decision is set to mirror the major strategic error Ford-Oz made when they decided to drop the fabulous V8 'Cleveland' 351 & 302cid engine family which was manufactured here until the early 1980s - a move which cost Falcon severely in sales and reputation.

You hit the nail on the head here. The contrast between the outgoing I6 and the D35 V6- which is acutely lacking in low-end torque- is not going to be pretty. There will be both tangible (acceleration times will likely be hurt due to the V6's torque deficit) and intangible (the car's character as you describe) disadvantages. And six cylinder Falcons will lose a big selling point against Holdens, as the base I6 has typically outperformed its V6 Holden counterparts.

[nota]

Originally Posted by aldw

Ultimately building Falcons in the US sharing the Mustang platform would help save the Falcon in Australia cost-wise long term, of which Ford really needs to do.

In other words .. We had to kill the patient to 'save' it


What advances would a shared Mustang platform bring to existing Falcon?
How can it be that Ford's little Aussie outpost has consistently been able to engineer a superior product to the parent company's efforts - and why?

What makes Ford-Oz deliver a regular family sedan that has and continues to so comprehensively outhandle even the 'sporty' Mustang - not to mention Dearborn's rest including that other RWD relic - and can progressively developed a barely competitive 50 y/o motor into something that easily rivals current - and future - big $$ US engines?

A better powerplant, with vastly superior dynamics, offering more advanced transmissions, a huge range of platform variations, etc - and all realised on a fraction of the budget allocations which in the US achieves such mediocre product, from the 'we know better' mob you guys term as Falcon's 'saviours'