Falcon FG stagnant

Post by **t2te50** » August 2nd, 2008, 10:33 pm

The day I laid eyes on the new falcon (motorshow) I didn't like the cars chances of making a sales breakthrough. Just to many old styling ques, a thirsty old engine and a dashboard to match the beloved AU (baboons arse).

But whats the real reason for their lacklustre sales effort to date? I'm out on the road all the time and have spoken to many late model Falcon owners and all seem to have the same opinion/sentiment towards the Falcon...........
-Too thirsty
-poor build quality
-poor after sales service (consequently due to the former)

Unfortunetly Ford Australia can't rest on its laurels like Toyota, Mazda, Mercedes, Honda and have to work hard to overcome these shortcomings. Things are looking very grim at the moment to say the least.

Post by **Sunboost** » August 2nd, 2008, 10:39 pm

The fuel economy is close to best in class at a claimed 10 point something litres per 100km. Ford have been advertising this fact in many motoring magazines.

The drivers you have "interviewed" drive them too shitly.

Nikk O'lass · Post by **Nikk O'lass** » August 2nd, 2008, 10:48 pm

t2te50 wrote:The day I laid eyes on the new falcon (motorshow) I didn't like the cars chances of making a sales breakthrough. Just to many old styling ques, a thirsty old engine and a dashboard to match the beloved AU (baboons arse). .

Old styling cues? Yeah, ok...Baboons arse dash? Are you on pill's are just hard to please, sif the has old styling cues and a ugly dash...

EBOOST · Post by **EBOOST** » August 2nd, 2008, 10:57 pm

yeah id have to agree mate i dont see much old styling in the fg.
and the ba was thirsty but i have heard fg is alot better.
cheers josh.

Dezza · Post by **Dezza** » August 2nd, 2008, 11:09 pm

I reckon the FG looks fantastic, both inside and out. Supposedly quality is a big step-up from the BA/BF and as others have said fuel economy is heaps better too. For such a big heavy car with rather powerful engines, it's amazing they can get fuel economy as good as what they have. If I had the money, I'd buy one, that's for certain.

krisisdog · Post by **krisisdog** » August 2nd, 2008, 11:24 pm

I think interior and mechanically they are fantastic, and the interior is magic, but I'm not too keen on the exterior

I'd buy a 6spd manual XR6T in a heartbeat if I had the dosh - 2nd hand of course - then replace the bodykit with something less ugly.

wicksy · Post by **wicksy** » August 2nd, 2008, 11:51 pm

what bodykit they got nothing anyways,

Russ. · Post by **Russ.** » August 3rd, 2008, 12:03 am

The interiors look sweet IMO (nothing Like the AU), I saw some of the first G6 and XT interiors being installed on test cars back when I was working for Ford (2006) as the first few cars were sent down the line to prove the new facilities/jigs, and you could see then that the dash was much neater than the BF.
Shame the ones I saw being built ended up as prooving ground hacks or crash test cars.

Frost · Post by **Frost** » August 3rd, 2008, 12:08 am

The BF MK2 - FG has the same fuel economy as an Aurion even in its upper range, it acutally comes in under a commodore I beleive.

Infact from Drive.com.au http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Artic ... leID=18700

In fact Holden is only able to equal Falcon consumption on the base model Omega. Other Falcon models like the Fairmont Ghia 6 cylinder with a six-speed auto (10.2) and the Falcon XR8 6sp auto (13.7) comprehensively beat it.

he volume model Omega V6 is rated at 10.9 litres/100km, down 0.1 litres on the VZ Executive. Likewise the Berlina V6, SV6 manual and automatic, Calais V6 and SS and SS V manual are down between one-tenth and two-tenths of a litre.

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Artic ... 17&IsPgd=0

Fuel consumption: How the Ford FG Falcon compares to its competitors
Six-cylinder engines*
Car Engine Power Fuel consumption
Ford Falcon 4.0-litre six-cylinder 195kW 10.5L/100km
Toyota Aurion 3.5-litre V6 200kW 9.9L/100km
Holden Commodore 3.6-litre V6 180kW 10.9L/100km

Performance engines*
Car Engine Power Fuel consumption
Ford Falcon turbo 4.0-litre six-cylinder turbo 270kW 11.7L/100km
Ford Falcon V8 5.4-litre V8 290kW 14.2L/100km
Holden Commodore High Output 3.6-litre V6 195kW 11.3L/100km

* ADR 81/01 fuel consumption figures for vehicles fitted with an automatic transmission.
Holden Commodore V8 6.0-litre V8 270kW 14.3L/100km
Toyota Aurion S/C 3.5-litre supercharged V6 241kW 10.9L/100km

Nikk O'lass · Post by **Nikk O'lass** » August 3rd, 2008, 12:23 am

yep the falcon (for a large car with big motor) has good economy plus more power, i don't see why people crap on about how shit the FG is, they must lat on their gut fingering their areshole instead of looking at facts.

And the styling is very modern, whilst being conservitive, the way that the angles and lines make the car look a whole lot smoother is in touch with modern/todays trend. An that interior is miles ahead of anything in its class... i cant think of any sedan under 100 grand that has an interior like this. (And where i work i get to see things like 7 seires beemers mercs and all that jazz...)

Damo · Post by **Damo** » August 3rd, 2008, 1:25 am

It's no AU that's for sure.

holmsy · Post by **holmsy** » August 3rd, 2008, 1:35 am

once again. douche.
the interior is a million times ahead of the au. hell the whole car is.

TAXI · Post by **TAXI** » August 3rd, 2008, 2:14 am

My opinion is interior well styled, fuel =great my el is 16 litres per 100 exterior isnt so good . to much angle on the headlights other than that i will buy one when there around 10 grand.that my drunken opinion.

serial_fool · Post by **serial_fool** » August 3rd, 2008, 3:26 am

Unfortunatly unless fuel prices ease within the next 5 years the Falcon unfortunately will be getting the arsehole.
From what I have seen about the FG is that it is superior in just about every way to its competitors (maybe not in the BOSS engined cars) but since the buying public see either the Falcon as a big, thirsty and expensive to run V8 that shits on the environment ( For the hippies) or a car that is unaustralian and slow(For the fools who think that the Commodore is the best thing since sliced bread) its not selling. Its a shame that the majority of people buy new cars to accuire a perceived image of that brand rather than actually comparing it to the other cars in the sector. Kinda reminds me of when the BA was released and shat all over the VY/VZ Commos but still couldn't knock them off its number 1 purch.

Malakai · Post by **Malakai** » August 3rd, 2008, 7:30 am

t2te50 wrote:The day I laid eyes on the new falcon (motorshow) I didn't like the cars chances of making a sales breakthrough. Just to many old styling ques, a thirsty old engine and a dashboard to match the beloved AU (baboons arse).

But whats the real reason for their lacklustre sales effort to date? I'm out on the road all the time and have spoken to many late model Falcon owners and all seem to have the same opinion/sentiment towards the Falcon...........
-Too thirsty
-poor build quality
-poor after sales service (consequently due to the former)

Unfortunetly Ford Australia can't rest on its laurels like Toyota, Mazda, Mercedes, Honda and have to work hard to overcome these shortcomings. Things are looking very grim at the moment to say the least.

It sounds like you copied that right out of the paper, except for the spelling mistakes.

I can't agree with any of it.

Frost · Post by **Frost** » August 3rd, 2008, 11:35 am

If Ford put a high output TDi Engine in there Falcon they will win the market for large cars

LUXO_8 · Post by **LUXO_8** » August 3rd, 2008, 11:39 am

t2te50 wrote:The day I laid eyes on the new falcon (motorshow) I didn't like the cars chances of making a sales breakthrough. Just to many old styling ques, a thirsty old engine and a dashboard to match the beloved AU (baboons arse).

But whats the real reason for their lacklustre sales effort to date? I'm out on the road all the time and have spoken to many late model Falcon owners and all seem to have the same opinion/sentiment towards the Falcon...........
-Too thirsty
-poor build quality
-poor after sales service (consequently due to the former)

Unfortunetly Ford Australia can't rest on its laurels like Toyota, Mazda, Mercedes, Honda and have to work hard to overcome these shortcomings. Things are looking very grim at the moment to say the least.

you bitch and moan about copping flack here, then come out with a post like this....

think before hitting the submit post button maybe

serial_fool · Post by **serial_fool** » August 3rd, 2008, 1:24 pm

I love it how he says that the AU is a baboons arse but he has one for himself!

G3R3N · Post by **G3R3N** » August 3rd, 2008, 1:30 pm

With a bonnet that looks like a cow's cnut?

Post by **Commando** » August 3rd, 2008, 1:52 pm

Christ mate, you're a tripper.

Personally, I think the XT/G6 look a little awkward in their styling (particularly the 1/4 panels behind the rear doors), but this styling seems to work well for the XRs and the G6ET.

And the XR8 utes are horny as fark!

lol @ random punt at fuel economy & getting shot down by actual facts & figures.

I do agree with "build quality" though, the finish isn't the best (like F A L C O N badging with the N a little wonky, panel gaps that differ either side of the boot, etc). It's good to see more & more FGs on the road now though.

Post by **Bipolar** » August 3rd, 2008, 3:42 pm

serial_fool wrote:From what I have seen about the FG is that it is superior in just about every way to its competitors (maybe not in the BOSS engined cars) but since the buying public see either the Falcon as a big, thirsty and expensive to run V8 that shits on the environment ( For the hippies) or a car that is unaustralian and slow(For the fools who think that the Commodore is the best thing since sliced bread) its not selling. Its a shame that the majority of people buy new cars to accuire a perceived image of that brand rather than actually comparing it to the other cars in the sector.

It's so annoying talking to brand snobs or eco-hippies that know nothing about cars. I think most of the brand snobbery comes from 30 years ago and has just stuck, because all new cars have defects and I don't know of a single modern vehicle that isn't reliable if it's looked after. And the dumbarse eco-warriors only look at fuel consumption and maybe carbon emissions, and fail to realise there are environmental effects from a car the moment there's a meeting to throw around ideas for a new car, right up until it's scrap metal is being recycled.

My Getz driving next door neighbour tried to win an eco argument with me a while ago about why I was killing the environment he wasn't, and I shut him down so many times he just said "Gotta go. See ya." and walked off.

Post by **Commando** » August 3rd, 2008, 4:44 pm

You show him who's boss, Bironmental.

Dezza · Post by **Dezza** » August 3rd, 2008, 5:28 pm

Bipolar wrote:
serial_fool wrote:From what I have seen about the FG is that it is superior in just about every way to its competitors (maybe not in the BOSS engined cars) but since the buying public see either the Falcon as a big, thirsty and expensive to run V8 that shits on the environment ( For the hippies) or a car that is unaustralian and slow(For the fools who think that the Commodore is the best thing since sliced bread) its not selling. Its a shame that the majority of people buy new cars to accuire a perceived image of that brand rather than actually comparing it to the other cars in the sector.
It's so annoying talking to brand snobs or eco-hippies that know nothing about cars. I think most of the brand snobbery comes from 30 years ago and has just stuck, because all new cars have defects and I don't know of a single modern vehicle that isn't reliable if it's looked after. And the dumbarse eco-warriors only look at fuel consumption and maybe carbon emissions, and fail to realise there are environmental effects from a car the moment there's a meeting to throw around ideas for a new car, right up until it's scrap metal is being recycled.

My Getz driving next door neighbour tried to win an eco argument with me a while ago about why I was killing the environment he wasn't, and I shut him down so many times he just said "Gotta go. See ya." and walked off.

This is what pisses me off about the Toyota Prius. People buy these POSs and rant and rave about how they're doing their part for the environment but fail to realise that the production, maintenance and disposal of the car use a LOT more energy than your standard run of the mill sedan. As they said on Top Gear, it's less efficient than a Land Rover Discovery. The E-series on the other hand, while fuel economy isn't great, they are ideal in other areas. One of these is recycling. You can go down to any wreckers and there will be lines of e-series. Get the parts you need from them, and you're set. No production of the new parts. They're available, cheap and should do the job. My 2c

G3R3N · Post by **G3R3N** » August 3rd, 2008, 5:38 pm

Land Rover Discovery < Prius???
Wow, that sounds like a HUGE claim!
The FG is a nice car IMO. The interior looks nothing like the AU as everyone has already said and I dont think the exterior is too shabby. After all, it is only around the $40,000 mark so what can you expect? There are cars out there for more that dont deliver as much. I guess the price is evident thru the build quality. Lettering being misaligned sounds fairly average. But for what you get (and the relatively good fuel efficiency), I dont think you can justifiably start a thread like this. Unless you're hanging for cyber-suicide of course

Post by **t2te50** » August 3rd, 2008, 6:41 pm

Frost wrote:The BF MK2 - FG has the same fuel economy as an Aurion even in its upper range, it acutally comes in under a commodore I beleive.

Infact from Drive.com.au http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Artic ... leID=18700

In fact Holden is only able to equal Falcon consumption on the base model Omega. Other Falcon models like the Fairmont Ghia 6 cylinder with a six-speed auto (10.2) and the Falcon XR8 6sp auto (13.7) comprehensively beat it.

he volume model Omega V6 is rated at 10.9 litres/100km, down 0.1 litres on the VZ Executive. Likewise the Berlina V6, SV6 manual and automatic, Calais V6 and SS and SS V manual are down between one-tenth and two-tenths of a litre.
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Artic ... 17&IsPgd=0

Fuel consumption: How the Ford FG Falcon compares to its competitors
Six-cylinder engines*
Car Engine Power Fuel consumption
Ford Falcon 4.0-litre six-cylinder 195kW 10.5L/100km
Toyota Aurion 3.5-litre V6 200kW 9.9L/100km
Holden Commodore 3.6-litre V6 180kW 10.9L/100km

Performance engines*
Car Engine Power Fuel consumption
Ford Falcon turbo 4.0-litre six-cylinder turbo 270kW 11.7L/100km
Ford Falcon V8 5.4-litre V8 290kW 14.2L/100km
Holden Commodore High Output 3.6-litre V6 195kW 11.3L/100km

* ADR 81/01 fuel consumption figures for vehicles fitted with an automatic transmission.
Holden Commodore V8 6.0-litre V8 270kW 14.3L/100km
Toyota Aurion S/C 3.5-litre supercharged V6 241kW 10.9L/100km

Talk about taking ADR testing for granted, it should be looked at like a grain of salt and nothing more. I think you'll find they consume a fair bit more then this figure. The centre console with the multi function screen on top of the dash just looks POX. Whoever thinks that it looks integrated has got to be smoking some goo stuff.

Nikk O'lass · Post by **Nikk O'lass** » August 3rd, 2008, 6:52 pm

t2te50 wrote: Talk about taking ADR testing for granted, it should be looked at like a grain of salt and nothing more. I think you'll find they consume a fair bit more then this figure. The centre console with the multi function screen on top of the dash just looks POX. Whoever thinks that it looks integrated has got to be smoking some goo stuff.

First of all, then center console is thie thing in between the seats...

...and the multi function screen is easier to use because your not looking down to use it, its in plain view...

Post by **needfordspeed** » August 3rd, 2008, 7:04 pm

The screen was put there because alot of people that purchased the BA/BF complained about it's positioning. It was moved up so it had a similar height position to the instrument cluster, so you don't have to take your eyes off the road for more than a split second

XRated · Post by **XRated** » August 3rd, 2008, 9:13 pm

Funny you say that... People have been getting much better fuel economy after these cars have been run in (usually mid 9s/100km). I personally think bringing out the FG was a waste of time and money with Ford's lack of quality marketing.

t2te50 wrote: Talk about taking ADR testing for granted, it should be looked at like a grain of salt and nothing more. I think you'll find they consume a fair bit more then this figure. The centre console with the multi function screen on top of the dash just looks POX. Whoever thinks that it looks integrated has got to be smoking some goo stuff.

t1MMy · Post by **t1MMy** » August 3rd, 2008, 10:18 pm

t2te50, are you on any sort of medication?

Tocchi · Post by **Tocchi** » August 4th, 2008, 12:07 am

Lol some of you fuckers are on crack

the baggers of the FG are the ones that cant fucking afford it.
open your f**kin eyes and see Ford have done something good

(now back to my free champagne.. yay)

[chubbz] · Post by **[chubbz]** » August 4th, 2008, 1:14 am

Personally i love the FG and would drive one any day even with its "baboon arse dash"

nommic · Post by **nommic** » August 4th, 2008, 11:21 am

AU:

FG:

The similarities are mind boggling!

t1MMy · Post by **t1MMy** » August 4th, 2008, 11:48 am

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Fairmont888 · Post by **Fairmont888** » August 4th, 2008, 11:49 am

those pics show just how far ford has come from the abortion that the AU was/is

Post by **TUFED6** » August 4th, 2008, 11:50 am

I'd have an FG G6E in a heartbeat.

The only things I don't like about them are the 'G6E' badges on the front quarters, and from some angles the rear quarters look a bit out of proportion. Oh and the lack of LSD, which I'm sure you can option.

glenneaux · Post by **glenneaux** » August 4th, 2008, 12:08 pm

needfordspeed wrote:The screen was put there because alot of people that purchased the BA/BF complained about it's positioning. It was moved up so it had a similar height position to the instrument cluster, so you don't have to take your eyes off the road for more than a split second

so its similar to an eseries then?

ned · Post by **ned** » August 4th, 2008, 1:19 pm

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 709-662,00.

Yeah, they're exact!

Post by **Bipolar** » August 4th, 2008, 1:28 pm

Link didn't work for me.

Post by **Bipolar** » August 4th, 2008, 3:26 pm

Is this it? http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor. ... 9B0007A76F

In summary, the FG is likely to receive a 5 star ANCAP crash rating by increasing the car's ability to handle a crash, as opposed to just adding a couple of airbags. Active safety > passive safety.

Post by **BLCKED** » August 4th, 2008, 5:16 pm

needfordspeed wrote:The screen was put there because alot of people that purchased the BA/BF complained about it's positioning. It was moved up so it had a similar height position to the instrument cluster, so you don't have to take your eyes off the road for more than a split second

+1

my old boss has a g220 fairlane, ba model, and he loves the position of the screen in the fg fords, says there sit load better.

and i love the centre console how its raised at the back, so comfy. the interiors are shit hot. not keen on the gt front end i prefer the xr8 nose.

and as far as fuel consumption is concerned. my old eb 22 litres/100 kms 200 rwk (approx) at the wheels

new xr6 turbo... half the consumption and more power..

they are exelent on fuel mate, i bet a boss 5.4 quad cam v8 shits all over your 5.0 (5.6?) push rod v8 for fuel.