[nota]

Originally Posted by fpv_gtho

I think its something hanging off the engine thats directly in the way of where a LHD assembly would go.

Sorry but I think you're wrong. Maybe you've been 'misguided' by the wafflings of some random internet idiot and have mistakenly repeated it as fact?

Think of it this way;
when viewed front-on the Falcon I-6 has one DOHC cyl head and a bank-angle of 0 degrees
the V6 has two DOHC heads side-to-side separated by a 60 degree block

If existing Falcons can not just accomodate Ford-NA's massive 5.4 SOHC V8 lump (something the larger Ford Crown-Victoria cannot fit) and even manages to swallow the wider-still DOHC Boss variant, then what aspect of the much narrower I-6 prevents Falcon from being converted to L/H/D?

Pic #1
Can you identify what & where that "something hanging off the engine" is that is directly in the way of an L/H/D conversion?

Pic #2
Falcon I-6 turbo appears to have more bulk on R/H/S than left, although this has not inhibited existing R/H/D setup!

Pic #3
New V6

What "LHD assembly" do you mean? Falcon engine bay has sufficient room for a brake booster on the L/H/S. Space-saving R&P seering since the old EA model-series means no intrusive column-mounted steering box since 1988

Falcon was originallly a L/H/D design, after all. And you must have seen those really old Falcons and Mustangs - eg 1960s models with the narrower engine bay And the original-type steering box And those bulky shock-towers - which still manage to fit the huge 460 BB or factory-fit 428s

Maybe with more support they'd fit the engine at an angle like BMW,

Unlike angled 'slant' BMW I-6 or V-engines, the Falcon I-6 unit is a vertical inline engine which afaik is the narrowest configuration possible

but the I6 also means the front overhang and dash height are compromised

In respect of "compromised" front overhang, I guess you're referring to Holden VE aping BMW proportioning (minimal front overhang) which has plusses & negatives but is hardly a "compromise"

Pic #4
In any case, why would the I-6 prevent Ford designers from pushing the front axle-line forward? Not much that I can see..

As for the I-6 delivering a "compromised" dash height, didn't the V8 Falcons require a special raised bonnet (to accomodate the taller engine) but not the I-6?

By the look of it (through pictures admittedly) if anything the I-6 Ford FG seems to feature a deeper windscreen than the V-engined Commodores has .. and the car also delivers more front passenger room .. and (unlike Commodore) can accomodate 3 front passengers. So where is the compromise?

so i guess its the easy way out regardless the reasons for dropping it. If they wanted to keep it, they'd be looking at an alloy block at the minimum, and would probably seriously consider reprofiling the bore/stroke.

What is intrinsically wrong with Falcon bore/stroke? It provides that unique low-down Falcon 'grunt' these 6cyls are famous for.

The 'easy-going' aussie I-6 gives its max torque from a very low & accessible 2,500 rpm (under 2,000 rpm in the turbo!) compared to the new yank V6 replacement which develops considerably less max torque, and at a tall 4,500 rpm

Here's what the new CEO of Ford-Australia said about the torque delivery of the two motors - and he should know because in his previous job he was the V6 Design Supervisor!

Ford says new V6 will better Aussie six for fuel consumption, but not torque

By MARTON PETTENDY

17 March 2008
FORD Australia says the “world-class” imported Duratec V6 that will replace its Geelong-built inline six after 50 years of Falcon service in 2010 will bring big advances in fuel efficiency – but don’t expect it to match the humble Aussie six for driveability.

Asked how the new engine will compare to the new FG Falcon’s upgraded 4.0-litre six, Ford’s new local chief - who started his career with Ford as the design supervisor for the Duratec V6 and launched the engine in Canada’s Edge model during his last posting as Ford of Canada boss - said some current Falcon six drivers may be disappointed by its bottom-end torque delivery, but not its fuel consumption.

“Now, how does it [V6] compare to the I6? Well from an architecture standpoint you can never duplicate the low-end torque of the I6 with the high-tech V6, which is what we have."

“So some customers who are more accustomed to low-end torque may not be as happy with the Duratec 35, but what I can tell you for sure is that they’ll be delighted with the fuel economy of the Duractec 35."

In other words: the peakier new V6 requires much higher revs to produce considerably less torque than the 'old' I-6

Pic #4
Falcon turbo torque 'curve'