New Ford Taurus. Its Not Rocket Science..

[csv8]

http://www.ford.com/cars/taurus/rocketscience/
I know this should be in the video section..not everyone goes there...sorry..
Ecoboost with twin turbos's.....

[flappist]

No it can stay here. This is an indication of some of the technology the 2017 Falcon may present.

And just looking at the whole site, the twin turbo AWD 270kw model looks GREAT, much better than any of the previous I have seen.

If it were available here in RHD I suspect it would give both the FG2 and and VF some serious competition.

[Resurrection]

Originally Posted by flappist

No it can stay here. This is an indication of some of the technology the 2017 Falcon may present.

2017 Falcon?

[WPR1]

Looks great I wouldn't mind one of these.

[Rodge]

272 Kw's and 469 nm's and they call that Super High Output (SHO). Creative marketing anyone ?

Dunno about others but I can't say I'm holding my breath in eager anticipation for this.

[imugli]

That site would get pulled down before it went up in Oz because it shows "dangerous" driving at speed...

[Road_Warrior]

It has been posted before, but like Rodge said, it falls down in the torque department compared with the I6T. I wonder if that NASCAR driver would like to do the same hot lap in an XR6T?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

It has been posted before, but like Rodge said, it falls down in the torque department compared with the I6T. I wonder if that NASCAR driver would like to do the same hot lap in an XR6T?

It is 3.5L compared to the I6 4L so Nm/litre it is not bad actually about the same as the FG2 XR6T while using the same ratio would be equivalent to 310kw.

It also demonstrates a LOT more torque than the 5.0 Mustang GT.

Why do some many get so defensive and paranoid about this?

If the current design Falcon is actually discontinued in 2017 surely this would be a contender for its replacement.

[jpd80]

The torque has been deliberately limited due to the limitations of the FWD/AWD gearbox.
In F150 the V6 Ecoboost's torque is increased to 420 lb ft ( 565mn) but is still limited by the RWD gearbox.

Judging by the 2.0 Ecoboost's output, the V6 Ecoboost should be easily capable of 313 kw and 617 nm
as a base line available from the factory.

[4.0i OHC]

Originally Posted by flappist

It is 3.5L compared to the I6 4L so Nm/litre it is not bad actually about the same as the FG2 XR6T while using the same ratio would be equivalent to 310kw.

It also demonstrates a LOT more torque than the 5.0 Mustang GT.

Why do some many get so defensive and paranoid about this?

If the current design Falcon is actually discontinued in 2017 surely this would be a contender for its replacement.

V6 + no manual = no soul

I'd much rather drive around in a manual AU I6 with 100kw less than one of those grossly overweight SUV-sedan things that reeks of America.

I'm looking to upgrade from AU1 manual ute to FH XR6T manual ute in 2015/16. This Taurus will be a step backwards in my view, and I'm sure many Ford enthusiasts share my view. I'd rather a V6 commodore even and that's saying something!

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by flappist

If the current design Falcon is actually discontinued in 2017 surely this would be a contender for its replacement.

Next gen Taurus will be on sale by then so its a bit hard to say.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

2017 Falcon?

So you think that in 2016 if/when the current design finishes that Ford are going to completely ignore this section of the market?

Why not keep the Falcon name alive by attaching it to a new platform with all the latest technology.

Wouldn't it be nice to see Falcon in the top 3 sellers again.........

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

Next gen Taurus will be on sale by then so its a bit hard to say.

Probably will, but anyone who saw a 2008 Falcon got a pretty good idea what the 2013 one would look like.

[FPV GTHO]

Next gen Taurus will be completely different to what we see now though

[Resurrection]

Originally Posted by flappist

So you think that in 2016 if/when the current design finishes that Ford are going to completely ignore this section of the market?

Why not keep the Falcon name alive by attaching it to a new platform with all the latest technology.

Wouldn't it be nice to see Falcon in the top 3 sellers again.........



Probably will, but anyone who saw a 2008 Falcon got a pretty good idea what the 2013 one would look like.

A name is more than a name - it represents a particular type of car. I would refuse to acknowledge a Thai built Ford with a Falcon badge on it as anything but an imposter.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

It has been posted before, but like Rodge said, it falls down in the torque department compared with the I6T. I wonder if that NASCAR driver would like to do the same hot lap in an XR6T?

The engine doesn't lack any torque, the F150 EcoBoost has 270kw/570Nm. It's torque is detuned in the Taurus because of the powertrain.

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by chevypower

The engine doesn't lack any torque, the F150 EcoBoost has 270kw/570Nm. It's torque is detuned in the Taurus because of the powertrain.

Dont let the truth get in the way of the haters now

[H.G]

and the driver isnt wearing a helment.. oh lordy..

[nstg8a]

I think the next gen Taurus, if the rumours are correct, will be a good replacement if its going to be the large global car for ford.
I just hope we at least get local assembly if the fh/fu is indeed the last true Aussie falcon.

So many people dismiss Taurus purely based on the last one to be sold here.

But for Taurus to be the falcons replacement there needs to be a rhd version made somewhere, and ford will have a handy facility sitting idle if falcon is no more.

But would the buying public accept it as a falcon, or does it actually have more chance of success being called something else?

I Personally believe the falcon nameplate has become toxic, and its time for it to be retired.
There is always that negativity associated with falcons, and cars like the r spec and eb/ecolpi cars show that no matter how good a car they are, people don't care anymore.

[jpd80]

The whole reason for continuing to offer a RWD Falcon in Australia is because of its perceived need over a FWD/AWD Taurus but
no one can blame people for asking the question when Ford offers a great RWD Falcon but very few people elect to buy it new..


If no one much buys new Falcons then all those cheap second hand ones eventually dry up...

[mik]

It`s probably a decent car, but if it is torque limited at 4xx nm whatever to preserve the driveline, you would think it wont be any fun at all to mod(well it will while it lasts), especially having the drive at the wrong end, ........less torque............ 100 kg`s heavier in the SVO offering(facial twitch happening), no 8 cylinder option (double face palm).

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by mik

It`s probably a decent car, but if it is torque limited at 4xx nm whatever to preserve the driveline, you would think it wont be any fun at all to mod(well it will while it lasts), especially having the drive at the wrong end, ........less torque............ 100 kg`s heavier in the SVO offering(facial twitch happening), no 8 cylinder option (double face palm).

This Taurus goes away in around 18 months time replaced by a Fusion/Mondeo based one
with Ecoboost V6 and upgraded AWD transmission. That car is around the same weight as the Falcon

[FPV GTHO]

Most east west transmission layouts seem to be torque limited, be it AWD or FWD so even the next model could be torque limited.

But then so are the Falcons, even the NA I6's are torque tagged to save the gearbox.

[mik]

Originally Posted by jpd80

This Taurus goes away in around 18 months time replaced by a Fusion/Mondeo based one
with Ecoboost V6 and upgraded AWD transmission. That car is around the same weight as the Falcon

okies, we waits an sees !
.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by mik

It`s probably a decent car, but if it is torque limited at 4xx nm whatever to preserve the driveline, you would think it wont be any fun at all to mod(well it will while it lasts), especially having the drive at the wrong end, ........less torque............ 100 kg`s heavier in the SVO offering(facial twitch happening), no 8 cylinder option (double face palm).

Really?

So any car that has been electronically limited to preserve the driveline would be no fun to mod?

Bugger

So what happened with every single B and F series turbo or V8 as every single one of them has been torque limited?

As was my datto.

As is I suspect most, if not all, SS/HSVs

USA is a very litigious society. Even some guns have safety instructions and disclaimers engraved into the barrels (Ruger). I suspect the SHO will do alright....

[mik]

Originally Posted by flappist

Really?

So any car that has been electronically limited to preserve the driveline would be no fun to mod?

Bugger

So what happened with every single B and F series turbo or V8 as every single one of them has been torque limited?

As was my datto.

As is I suspect most, if not all, SS/HSVs

USA is a very litigious society. Even some guns have safety instructions and disclaimers engraved into the barrels (Ruger). I suspect the SHO will do alright....

not at all , but if i`m not mistaken it has a much lower tolerance than any of our models so would require more work needed to beef it up, and being east west engine would require much more painful work to beef up if it is the transmission, please correct me if i`m wrong, as it is much easier in a conventional layout car to do beef up mods.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by mik

not at all , but if i`m not mistaken it has a much lower tolerance than any of our models so would require more work needed to beef it up, and being east west engine would require much more painful work to beef up if it is the transmission, please correct me if i`m wrong, as it is much easier in a conventional layout car to do beef up mods.

You get all this from a number in a brochure?

Firstly next time you think that east west could lot possibly be quick try and catch one of the euro rockets or a WRX/EVO.

If what you are saying is that it will not be cheap to wind it up to 10,000kw when it is 10 years old and has 200,000 km on it then I cannot see any issue with that at all.

I am sure there was just as much misunderstanding when the idea of fuel injection and computers were proposed to replace carburetors and distributors as it would be "too difficult to change anything like jets and a cam".

I can understand that there are some vehemently opposed to the whole idea and if so they have the choice of not buying one.
But as there is NOT going to be a RWD sedan similar to the current Falcon, what do you really want? Do you want Falcon to end up like Valiant?

And in the big picture whatever happens will not have any impact on most of the loudest complainers until at least 2037.......

[mik]

Relation to the torque limiting

Originally Posted by flappist

You get all this from a number in a brochure?

Firstly next time you think that east west could lot possibly be quick try and catch one of the euro rockets or a WRX/EVO.

If what you are saying is that it will not be cheap to wind it up to 10,000kw when it is 10 years old and has 200,000 km on it then I cannot see any issue with that at all.

I am sure there was just as much misunderstanding when the idea of fuel injection and computers were proposed to replace carburetors and distributors as it would be "too difficult to change anything like jets and a cam".

I can understand that there are some vehemently opposed to the whole idea and if so they have the choice of not buying one.
But as there is NOT going to be a RWD sedan similar to the current Falcon, what do you really want? Do you want Falcon to end up like Valiant?

And in the big picture whatever happens will not have any impact on most of the loudest complainers until at least 2037.......

I don't think I said anything at all about not being able to extract horse power from the motor, or for that matter get around the corners quick, my comment was in relation to Jpd80"s remark about the transmission being low torque rated and due to that difficult to get around without a lot of pain and expense in the current model. Beefing up a fwd transmission in the old days and I suspect even today would like having teeth pulled putting a serious damper on the engine modding.

[4.0i OHC]

Originally Posted by flappist

I can understand that there are some vehemently opposed to the whole idea and if so they have the choice of not buying one.
But as there is NOT going to be a RWD sedan similar to the current Falcon, what do you really want? Do you want Falcon to end up like Valiant?

And in the big picture whatever happens will not have any impact on most of the loudest complainers until at least 2037.......

Well yes I would rather the Falcon name die than have its legacy tarnished by being applied to a V6 auto only yankmobile.

Falcon for me means RWD I6 simple as that!

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by flappist

You get all this from a number in a brochure?

Firstly next time you think that east west could lot possibly be quick try and catch one of the euro rockets or a WRX/EVO.

If what you are saying is that it will not be cheap to wind it up to 10,000kw when it is 10 years old and has 200,000 km on it then I cannot see any issue with that at all.

I am sure there was just as much misunderstanding when the idea of fuel injection and computers were proposed to replace carburetors and distributors as it would be "too difficult to change anything like jets and a cam".

I can understand that there are some vehemently opposed to the whole idea and if so they have the choice of not buying one.
But as there is NOT going to be a RWD sedan similar to the current Falcon, what do you really want? Do you want Falcon to end up like Valiant?

And in the big picture whatever happens will not have any impact on most of the loudest complainers until at least 2037.......

Dont worry mate, its not easy to convince folk that wont buy the Falcon to even consider what may be its replacement.

[irish2]

So a vehicle with 270kw. 0-96km/h in 6.0 seconds. versus a Falcon with 270kw, 0-100km/h in 5.1 seconds. hmmm.