New Ford Falcon First Drive: "Best Large Car Down Under"

[Generation IV]

I'm not too sure about this, it sounds a little too good to be true. I doubt the Boss 290 in the XR8 can outdo the L98 270 in the SSV. And I doubt replacing the front suspension from the Territory has given the FG a quantum leap above the Aurion and VE. It sounds a little odd if you ask me. I'm still not crash hot over the interior, it is an improvement but it has just a little bit of an American touch to it....hmmmm. And I don't think you can say that the FG is the best car that's Australian made by just driving it very briefly on isolated roads. I think carpoint has gotten a little bit ahead of themselves. I'll wait until they perform a proper test on proper Australian roads in traffic and so on and directly against the Commodore and Aurion. Until then, I think that carpoint review should be taken with a pinch of salt.

But if it turns out to be true, this can only be good for Holden as it will now make them work alot harder to make the VEII or VF alot better. My major interest in the FG is the improvement of the turbo 6. The V8 will still be a poor, fat iron lump and the L98 and LS3 will **** all over it, but the improvements to the turbo 6 are something to be worried about over at Holden HQ. But I have faith in the General's baby.

[SCCA1995]

Originally Posted by TaHoE

I just can't get past that old school styling. The Commodore doesn't set the bar very high, but it's at least attractive, the Falcon looks so dated.

Hmmm... It almost makes the Pontiac G8 GXP look great.

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by Generation IV

I'm not too sure about this, it sounds a little too good to be true. I doubt the Boss 290 in the XR8 can outdo the L98 270 in the SSV. And I doubt replacing the front suspension from the Territory has given the FG a quantum leap above the Aurion and VE. It sounds a little odd if you ask me. I'm still not crash hot over the interior, it is an improvement but it has just a little bit of an American touch to it....hmmmm. And I don't think you can say that the FG is the best car that's Australian made by just driving it very briefly on isolated roads. I think carpoint has gotten a little bit ahead of themselves. I'll wait until they perform a proper test on proper Australian roads in traffic and so on and directly against the Commodore and Aurion. Until then, I think that carpoint review should be taken with a pinch of salt.

But if it turns out to be true, this can only be good for Holden as it will now make them work alot harder to make the VEII or VF alot better. My major interest in the FG is the improvement of the turbo 6. The V8 will still be a poor, fat iron lump and the L98 and LS3 will **** all over it, but the improvements to the turbo 6 are something to be worried about over at Holden HQ. But I have faith in the General's baby.

For a start BF11 beat aurion for general dynamics, while it came a very close second to VE, FG doesn't need much more to be class leader for dynamic abilities.

Carpoint is not the only review claiming FG is tipped for class leadership, the FG was driven on Australian roads, where else would it be driven!?

The XR6 turbo has shown 5.1 secs to 100KL/H with A/C ON. The XR8 is slow at 6.3 sec to 100KL/H and FPVs have not yet been tested.
Ford is the one to beat for 6cyl performance while Holden still has the performance edge only with the V8s.

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by TaHoE

I just can't get past that old school styling. The Commodore doesn't set the bar very high, but it's at least attractive, the Falcon looks so dated.

The styling comments amuse me. Old school styling?

The VE has simliar headlight and grille cutouts and design as the 2002 BA falcon.

The FG and VE have very similar glasshouse designs etc, i don't see the big difference.
You guys will never see an FG in the flesh as opposed to the G8, VE commodore.
I don't think anyone can judge styling accurately unless you see any vehicle in the flesh together.

[BBDOS CV8]

Originally Posted by ford&holden

The FG and VE have very similar glasshouse designs etc, i don't see the big difference.
.

They do? I looked at the Falcon at the motor show - it doesn't have similar glasshouse design at all. If fact it almost looks like a old-time bonnet, visually the enlarged ears at the back to fix the AU headroom and rear-seat entry issues make it look like the top edge of the roof at teh back and side is further out than the base, like a 1930's car or a Ford Zodiac. The Commodore's got a CD of .31 The Falcon? Doubtful. It really makes the car look somewhat like something exploded inside. Sort of puffed out like a Coke can that's been frozen. It doesn't match up with the rear haunch at all. The bulbousness extends to the guard where it's been puffed out to cover the wider track.

It's all personal opinion, but the VE's roofline still looks graceful to me after 2- years - the Falcs looks like a tacked-on afterthought. The VE's rear quarter styling is not as good IMO (although it works much better on the WM) - but the Falcon looks just like a BF with the Mondeo's roof cut-and-shut on it, when you'd think they differentiate it a bit more.

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

They do? I looked at the Falcon at the motor show - it doesn't have similar glasshouse design at all. If fact it almost looks like a old-time bonnet, visually the enlarged ears at the back to fix the AU headroom and rear-seat entry issues make it look like the top edge of the roof is further out than the bottom like a 1930's car or a Ford Zodiac. The Commodore's got a CD of .31 The Falcon? Doubtful. It really makes the car look somewhat like something exploded inside. Sort of puffed out like a Coke can that's been frozen. It doesn't match up with the rear haunch at all. The bulbousness extends to the guard where it's been puffed out to cover the wider track.

It's all personal opinion, but the VE's roofline still looks graceful to me after 2- years - the Falcs looks like a tacked-on afterthought. The VE's rear quarter styling is not as good IMO (although it works much better on the WM) - but the Falcon looks just like a BF, when you'd think they differentiate it a bit more.

Splitting hairs?

IMO the door frame cuts outs on VE are over detailed with the extra fill in frame on the body side stampings, the wheels guards look way over pumped, particuarly on base omega and the ride heights on all VEs look like they sit too high.
What about the BA falcon rip off headlight and grille cutouts and designs?? or the fact that sinse 1997s VT Holden changed thier C pillar design that mimics falcons?
I doubt FG has a worse CD figure of .31. Fuel consumption in FG better than VE, despite being 10KG heavier, so i can't see how FG body is significantly less slippery than VE.

These packaging issues you keep harping on about seem like pure rubbish to me, apart from leg room, the FG beats VE for interior room and outward vision. Thats with that long, tall heavy inline 6 engine!?
VE still have a 50/50 weight balance while FG is about 53/47 yet handles better, why?

Answer some of these engineering questions for me and you might have a point but at this stage Ford must be doing something better than Holden to achieve the results they have over the VE.

I see people now can only pick styling of FG while engineering wise it can beat a worldwide GM platform while having a smaller budget and no LHD exports...
Wonders never cease. Next.

[Generation IV]

Originally Posted by ford&holden

For a start BF11 beat aurion for general dynamics, while it came a very close second to VE, FG doesn't need much more to be class leader for dynamic abilities.

Carpoint is not the only review claiming FG is tipped for class leadership, the FG was driven on Australian roads, where else would it be driven!?

The XR6 turbo has shown 5.1 secs to 100KL/H with A/C ON. The XR8 is slow at 6.3 sec to 100KL/H and FPVs have not yet been tested.
Ford is the one to beat for 6cyl performance while Holden still has the performance edge only with the V8s.

Well for one, Ford Australia's test track isn't the best replica of Australian roads I've ever seen, its just a specially designed racetrack in essence. Australian roads are bumpy, smooth, gravel-less, dirt, flooded, everything the opposite of the test track. Fords proving ground is also the birthplace of the FG so it should naturally be an excellent performer on it. When the FG is put directly against the VE (side by side) on proper roads that we (the public) drive on, then the results can be taken seriously.

The XR6T has 5.1 seconds to 100km/h? That's an excellent result, huge improvement, however, again, I'll still take that result with a pinch of salt as it was taken by Ford in privacy on its own specially designed test track. I want to see the result on our public roads performed by actual journos. Ford engineers driving on their own test track isn't a result i would believe just like that, much like HSV with this 4.96 seconds with the GTS, hasn't happened yet. I reckon it will hit consistent 5.5 or 5.4 seconds when WHEELS and MOTOR get their hands on it and test dealer versions (not hand selected models that may be slightly more athletic than usual....). The GTS has hit consistent 5.0/5.1 seconds with WHEELS, so I don't know why people are labelling it the fastest Aussie car when clearly its not.

I love the fact that you make V8s sound shameful f&h. Whats to be ashamed of that Holden's draw card is their V8? Its been extensively modified by them to deliver excellent performance, brilliant fuel economy considering its power/torque and capacity and marked gains over other applications in the US. The fact you f&h make out the Holden V8 draw card to be pathetic is odd nonetheless. Ford's draw card is their I6, true and its a brilliant engine, but its gone soon, so lets hope Ford are used to V6's.....

[Generation IV]

Originally Posted by ford&holden

VE still have a 50/50 weight balance while FG is about 53/47 yet handles better, why?

Don't make me laugh F&H. You know this how? From a ten minute drive on a test track under controlled conditions? f&h I thought I knew you better than that. How can you believe that without possibly seeing an actual review next to the VE and having not driven it for yourself? I thought you said a while ago that figures stated from journos aren't always to be trusted and you shouldn't believe them as your only source of information. f&h, swallow your words. 10 minutes in a controlled environment is not my idea of a proper review and without the presence of a VE? You must be absolutely off your nut to believe that.

[Generation IV]

Some of you are aware of my instant disliking to Ford Aus's new boss, Bill Osbourne and his recent comment: "The Falcon is a superior product to the VE and its obvious flaws"

I couldn't resist laughing out loud actually. I'd like to share a comment written in the Daily Telegraph CarsGuide (Friday 11th) by Bill Osbourne:

"When I arrived in Australia, I had almost no knowledge of the cars being made here" Bill Osbourne

I'd like to share the date of both comments. Bill Osbourne stated he had no real knowledge of the cars made here, yet he has enough "intelligence".... to say that the Falcon is completely superior to the VE and its flaws. That statement was in his first week on the job. Now I'm no professional but that is the most pathetic, low-down, unintelligent first move I've ever seen for a new boss to make. He's cocky, obviously has no idea what he's on about and is getting paid far too much for his own good. The fact he was even given the top job with no knowledge of Ford Aus baffles me. I wait with enthusiasm for his next rediculously obscene and farfetched outburst.

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by Generation IV

Well for one, Ford Australia's test track isn't the best replica of Australian roads I've ever seen, its just a specially designed racetrack in essence. Australian roads are bumpy, smooth, gravel-less, dirt, flooded, everything the opposite of the test track. Fords proving ground is also the birthplace of the FG so it should naturally be an excellent performer on it. When the FG is put directly against the VE (side by side) on proper roads that we (the public) drive on, then the results can be taken seriously.

The XR6T has 5.1 seconds to 100km/h? That's an excellent result, huge improvement, however, again, I'll still take that result with a pinch of salt as it was taken by Ford in privacy on its own specially designed test track. I want to see the result on our public roads performed by actual journos. Ford engineers driving on their own test track isn't a result i would believe just like that, much like HSV with this 4.96 seconds with the GTS, hasn't happened yet. I reckon it will hit consistent 5.5 or 5.4 seconds when WHEELS and MOTOR get their hands on it and test dealer versions (not hand selected models that may be slightly more athletic than usual....). The GTS has hit consistent 5.0/5.1 seconds with WHEELS, so I don't know why people are labelling it the fastest Aussie car when clearly its not.

I love the fact that you make V8s sound shameful f&h. Whats to be ashamed of that Holden's draw card is their V8? Its been extensively modified by them to deliver excellent performance, brilliant fuel economy considering its power/torque and capacity and marked gains over other applications in the US. The fact you f&h make out the Holden V8 draw card to be pathetic is odd nonetheless. Ford's draw card is their I6, true and its a brilliant engine, but its gone soon, so lets hope Ford are used to V6's.....

AGAIN, AGAIN, The test drivs were done on public roads! and did you know that Wheels mag conducts its COTY testing at Holdens Lang Lang and ford You Yangs proving grounds?
You're tripping over yourself to rpove FG isn't better than VE, so amusing.

AGAIN, Drive.com did the testing on XT and XR6 turbo, not FORD.
They tested the XR6 a few times with A/C ON and got the same result.

I never said Holdens V8 performance was to be ashamed off, now making deates up i see, desperation Gne IV perhaps?

Holdens V8s aren't better than Ford V8s for fuel consumption, only performance and the FPVs have not been tested yet, only XR8.

FG is simply a better overall package than VE, accept it Gen IV

[BBDOS CV8]

Originally Posted by ford&holden

Splitting hairs?

IMO the door frame cuts outs on VE are over detailed with the extra fill in frame on the body side stampings, the wheels guards look way over pumped, particuarly on base omega and the ride heights on all VEs look like they sit too high.
What about the BA falcon rip off headlight and grille cutouts and designs?? or the fact that sinse 1997s VT Holden changed thier C pillar design that mimics falcons?
I doubt FG has a worse CD figure of .31. Fuel consumption in FG better than VE, despite being 10KG heavier, so i can't see how FG body is significantly less slippery than VE.

These packaging issues you keep harping on about seem like pure rubbish to me, and outward vision. Thats with that long, tall heavy inline 6 engine!?
VE still have a 50/50 weight balance while FG is about 53/47 yet handles better, why?

Answer some of these engineering questions for me and you might have a point but at this stage Ford must be doing something better than Holden to achieve the results they have over the VE.

I see people now can only pick styling of FG while engineering wise it can beat a worldwide GM platform while having a smaller budget and no LHD exports...
Wonders never cease. Next.

You're taking drive impressions of preproduction engineering cars as gospel. Remember how the VE drive release even Drive(l) raved about the cars - when back to back with the contemporary Falcon they didn't seem so far advanced. When the HSV VZs were released with LS2s in VZ, it was claimed someone achieved HSV's time of 5.0 seconds, same with the VE GTS at 4.9. Then the VE SS at Lang Land on Holden's test strip - 5.3 seconds. Never ever replicated since in an official test. I suspect the same will be true.

Sorry, the VE looks coherent as if it were all designed at once. This new FG doesn't. It's new design language plastered on old.

Ford now has 3 tunes of the Boss V8 - 260, 290 and 302Kw. And they all achieve virtually the same performance of the original 2002, 5-speed manual, 4-speed auto version, even with six speed Tremec and ZF gearboxes. So I'd say cummulative progress = zero %. That means an FPV V8 will still be straighlined by a 2000 VT SS, given equal drivers. The VE has dropped a second over the quarter and half a second 0-100 in the same time in official tests.

Like I've said before, this will be the last V8 Falcon.

Fuel economy? According to this article the XR6T 'got 10L/100km in gentle highway driving' - that puts it about 1l/100km behind anyl V8 Commodore in freeway driving. Hardly an enahncement. Same with the XT - 9.0l/100km in highway according to Drive. Nothing special. People are getting that out of SV6 autos and 8 out of manuals in gentle highway work.

As Ford does not make use of a windtunnel they could only give you a 'virtual' figure for CD, whereas the VE was tested in Walkinshaw Racing's.

Ford did have a packaging problem with AU mark VII and they've addressed it in mark VIII by enlarging the cabin. Unfortunately they didn't alter the floorpan, so they 'increased tbe bubble' but not the footprint. You admitted above

apart from leg room, the FG beats VE for interior room

I have rear legroom issues in a Territory, and a Falcon so if this hasn't changed then again - this is more a makeover than a new car.

Hagon in his blog said the driver seating position, steering wheel angle and adjustment range is identical to BA/BF. That means for me it is out of the question, because I can't get a position that doesn't feel like I'm driving a bus. And I'm large, but not that large - I can get comfortable in the missus' Astra.

Both Hagon and Dowling mention all seven cars from XT to XR, had rack-rattle, which is a sign something is wrong between the steering gear and the suspension knuckles. Is this something intrinsic to transplanting the Territory's suspension? Previously that particular failing was restricted to FWD cars and is a factor of the driveline components in the front end. Again, doesn't sound like a positive development to me, and hardly confidence inspiring in bumpy corners. Holden positioned the rack in VE ahead of the axle and the callipers behind - there is a reason for this. Engineering advance?

It's also been noted by more than one source that all seven FGs in the test fleet were autos - has Ford fixed the driveline lash issues that plague every version I've been in since AU, including my workmate's 2006 BA II LPG auto? My 2003-build car doesn't clunk after 50,000km. Ford dealers say 'normal' and 'they all do that'.

53/47 - that'd be the six. The eight is more like 60/40.

Ford still has steel 16" wheels on it's base car. It's heavier without airbags standard on all but the most expensive model. The rest have 17" wheels which is no doubt a weight reducing measure. 18" wheels and tyres weigh more. It won't achieve 5 star ANCAP ratings without curtain airbags, and thats the way ANCAP will test it because they always test the most numerous example in standard trim, which was the Omega VE and Prodigy Aurion. Makes Ford look cheap to not include it.

It was also noted all seven cars had A-pillar fit and finish issues with interiors. Tried to be too clever? Problem? Will they build them better day-day than carefully prepared launch vehicles?

Hagon said in his blog the biggest problem is it feels almost identical to the old one to drive. That's not a bad thing as it wasn't bad car - but if it feels and looks so similar, what will make people buy the new one, when they aren't buying the old? It still sells on big engine, acres of sheetmetal per dollar. Incremental advances, some oversights. Improved, yes. But enough?

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

You're taking drive impressions of preproduction engineering cars as gospel. Remember how the VE drive release even Drive(l) raved about the cars - when back to back with the contemporary Falcon they didn't seem so far advanced. When the HSV VZs were released with LS2s in VZ, it was claimed someone achieved HSV's time of 5.0 seconds, same with the VE GTS at 4.9. Then the VE SS at Lang Land on Holden's test strip - 5.3 seconds. Never ever replicated since in an official test. I suspect the same will be true.

You maybe right, lets wait and see shall how the REAL cars perform. Drive tested the XR6 with A/C on and not just once.
You're are aware that these FGs are rougher around the edges compared to what the public and dealers will be getting?
Please point out where falcons in the past have showed better performance times and superior handling dynamics on pre-production units?
You pointed out Holdens only.

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

Sorry, the VE looks coherent as if it were all designed at once. This new FG doesn't. It's new design language plastered on old.

Please, as you said before styling is subjective, it's the only thing left to pick on FG for. I like the VE and i like the FGs styling also.
To say VE looks more modern than FG is desperate. At least Fords entire passenger vehicle range looks cohesive!

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

Ford now has 3 tunes of the Boss V8 - 260, 290 and 302Kw. And they all achieve virtually the same performance of the original 2002, 5-speed manual, 4-speed auto version, even with six speed Tremec and ZF gearboxes. So I'd say cummulative progress = zero %. That means an FPV V8 will still be straighlined by a 2000 VT SS, given equal drivers. The VE has dropped a second over the quarter and half a second 0-100 in the same time in official tests.

Like I've said before, this will be the last V8 Falcon.

I've already stated Holden does better V8 performance. Where is the world heading for fuel consumption and V8s in general? Not bigger and thirstier which is where Holden has headed every time commodore has had an update since VT. Are you aware Ford US is developing a new 6.2L V8?
To be honest if Ford can get thier turbo 6cyl to perform like thism who cares about a V8, only cashed up FPV and HSV buyers do, not the big majority of falc/commo buyers.
FPV outsold HSV with Turbo power before the VE series was launched, Holden needs turbo power for the HF V6 sooner or later.

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

Fuel economy? According to this article the XR6T 'got 10L/100km in gentle highway driving' - that puts it about 1l/100km behind anyl V8 Commodore in freeway driving. Hardly an enahncement. Same with the XT - 9.0l/100km in highway according to Drive. Nothing special. People are getting that out of SV6 autos and 8 out of manuals in gentle highway work.

As Ford does not make use of a windtunnel they could only give you a 'virtual' figure for CD, whereas the VE was tested in Walkinshaw Racing's.

Ford did have a packaging problem with AU mark VII and they've addressed it in mark VIII by enlarging the cabin. Unfortunately they didn't alter the floorpan, so they 'increased tbe bubble' but not the footprint. You admitted above

Every official fuel rating has FG better than VE, wanna bet the real world comparison reviews will show the same?
So if FG worse of than VE for a slippery shape? i don't see your proof?
Tracks and wheelbase are larger all round than BF11.
The rear floor plan is the only carry over part of the chassis, does that alter the entire styling and packaging of FG? i think not.
The same journo you quote has also stated that FG drives better as a package than VE...

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

Hagon in his blog said the driver seating position, steering wheel angle and adjustment range is identical. That means for me it is out of the question, because I can't get a position that doesn't feel like I'm driving a bus. And I'm large, but not that large - I can get comfortable in the missus' Astra.

Both Hagon and Dowling mention all seven cars from XT to XR, had rack-rattle, which is a sign something is wrong between the steering gear and the suspension knuckles. Is this something intrinsic to transplanting the Territory's suspension? Previously that particular failing was restricted to FWD cars and is a factor of the driveline components in the front end. Again, doesn't sound like a positive development to me, and hardly confidence inspiring in bumpy corners. Holden positioned the rack in VE ahead of the axle and the callipers behind - there is a reason for this. Engineering advance?

You personally won't get a comfortable driving position in FG, i wait for the direct comparions to come in as BF11 was never singled out for poor driving comfort compared to VE, 380 or aurion.

The rack rattle you mention, was heard, not felt and these same jurnos you quote also state that this is the ONLY trade off for a class leading dynamic package. As you stated before, these are pre-production vehicles. So you won't accept performance figures as gospel but you will if it's rack rattle?
This also show your lack of knowledge, the FG has the rack mounted ahead of the front wheels also, like territory first then VE. Engineering advance? Mecedes are known for rack rattle in some of thier models, stop tying to pick at nothing. The last i checked the VE isn't perfect and neither is the FG, the difference being FG is the better devil to know.
Contradiction anyone?
So VE suffers a hasher ride, less dynamic control, worse NVH, worse fuel consumption and rack rattle that can be heard, not felt is the sole trade off...? I know which i'll take.

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

It's also been noted by more than one source that all seven FGs in the test fleet were autos - has Ford fixed the driveline lash issues that plague every version I've been in since AU, including my workmate's 2006 BA II LPG auto? My 2003-build car doesn't clunk after 50,000km. Ford dealers say 'normal' and 'they all do that'.

I've head the same driveline backlash in any manual commodore and yes lets wait for the manual versions, as you say no test has been done yet.

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

53/47 - that'd be the six. The eight is more like 60/40.

Yes that would be the 6cyl and what is the VE V8, still 50/50? My point is Ford has a disadvantage to begin with yet somehow does a better job tuning FGs primary hardware to work better than Holden does with VE hardware...

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

Ford still has steel 16" wheels on it's base car. It's heavier without airbags standard on all but the most expensive model. The rest have 17" wheels which is no doubt a weight reducing measure. 18" wheels and tyres weigh more. It won't achieve 5 star ANCAP ratings without curtain airbags, and thats the way ANCAP will test it because they always test the most numerous example in standard trim, which was the Omega VE and Prodigy Aurion. Makes Ford look cheap to not include it.

More clutching straws i see.
VE ONLY just got alloys as standard, along with painted door handles and morriors, airbags also, no doubt in response to FG which has painted door handles and mirrors, chrome bootlid and front grille trim and chrome moulding on the lower window rubbers.
Option up curtain airbags and alloys to match VE and the weight penalty will be similar as VE weighs more for the same reasons you claim Ford omits these items. Omega has less power, worse fuel consumption and NVH, 4 speed auto with tip ****, manual A/C compared to FG XT, your point??
It maybe a weight saving measure, but FG is ONLY 10

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

It was also noted Ford had A-pillar fit and finish issues. Problem? Will they buld them better than carefully prepared launch vehicles?

Are you like Gen IV and choose to read some parts of the same review you quote from?
It was ALSO noted that Ford stated that these pre-production issues have already been rectified, shall i pick on VE recall and quality issues??

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

Hagon said in his blog the biggest problem is it feels almost identical to the old one to drive. That's not a bad thing as it wasn't bad car - but if it feels and looks so similar, what will make people buy the new one, when they aren't buying the old? It still sells on big engine, acres of sheetmetal per dollar.

It's clearly better in every way than the BF11 and it appears better than VE also, why wouldn't you buy one!?
This argument could be used with VE vers VZ, don't you think? Holden didn't improve VE in every measurable aspect compared to VZ, Ford has with FG over BF11

Every other jurno puts FG ahead in every measurbale area compared to BF11, lets wait for the reviews shall we?
I guess you and Gen IV will still argue over peanuts when FG shows to be a very good vehicle from FORD.

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by Generation IV

Don't make me laugh F&H. You know this how? From a ten minute drive on a test track under controlled conditions? f&h I thought I knew you better than that. How can you believe that without possibly seeing an actual review next to the VE and having not driven it for yourself? I thought you said a while ago that figures stated from journos aren't always to be trusted and you shouldn't believe them as your only source of information. f&h, swallow your words. 10 minutes in a controlled environment is not my idea of a proper review and without the presence of a VE? You must be absolutely off your nut to believe that.

I give up! You are silly...

These FGs were tested on PUBLIC roads for over 500klms, not 10 mins, stick to the facts

[stevecmh]

too bad that isnt here in America

[BBDOS CV8]

Originally Posted by ford&holden

I guess you and Gen IV will still argue over peanuts when FG shows to be a very good vehicle from FORD.

I could be unkind, say you are clutching at straws based on the few crumbs from the table.

My opinion is my opinion. I wouldn't buy one on looks as I think it's gone backwards ever since BF Series 1 which was a more coherent looking car than the VZ; and if as reported the driving position is unchanged. I don't think the rest is different enough and not $800mil worth. I'm not likely to buy anything new soon, as I intend to keep the Monaro for as long as I can and the missus will buy something smaller. People are impressed by the turbo six, and 0-100 times are important but not decision makers, especially when considering premium fuel prices.

Both the 6 and 8 are in their final reviison - dead end.

Where does Ford go with it for the remaining years of it's life when the DI V6 appears later this year, and the sixspeed on the upperspec Holdens with the entry level getting the 195/5-speed combo?

I don't see a lot has changed over the BF to encourage anyone other than fleet-lease to get one. Whether fact or just perception the VE looked and felt a quantum leap over VZ. One of the few major additions is the curtain airbags, and they aren't standard on anything other than the most expensive model. When Holden announced they were making them standard across the range, I wonder if they knew Ford weren't ordering heaps through the supplier, and decided to gazump them?

The FG? Just seems overall, marginal improvement wth some gains, some losses.

Let's wait for the comparos.