My Beast

I've had my 2004 Ford BA Falcon XT Wagon for about 3 years now, though only just got round to taking pics to post on here.

Utility before fun?:) (I recognise that)
what size do I have to think of here, Mondeo?

falcons are fullsizers, mondeos are midsizers

edit: outside europe and east asia you usually get more size and less refinement for same priced cars, though aussie RWD full sizers are genuinely well made and loved by most owners

Bigger than a Mondeo, its RWD, has a 4.0L l6. 182kw @ 5000rpm and 380Nm @ 3000rpm.
Sadly its a 4sp auto. Would have got a Manual but the criteria when getting this was a big station wagon with not too many kms.

Size-wise I think they're close to a 5-Series/A6/E-Class, maybe slighty larger. They just cost a whole bunch less.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_BA_Falcon"]Ford BA Falcon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

pimento, thats about right. The BMW 5 series here starts at about 80K while the Falcon starts at 40k. The 5 series has a 2.0T while the Falcon has a 4.0L l6.

[quote=acfsambo;982910]pimento, thats about right. The BMW 5 series here starts at about 80K while the Falcon starts at 40k. The 5 series has a 2.0T while the Falcon has a 4.0L l6.[/quote]

actually the 5 series and probably the A6 wagon models are smaller than the Mondeo sold over here. (The Germans produce "lifestyle" wagons, while other brands produce utility cars:))

[quote=henk4;982913]actually the 5 series and probably the A6 wagon models are smaller than the Mondeo sold over here. (The Germans produce "lifestyle" wagons, while other brands produce utility cars:))[/quote]

I thought the 3 series and A4 were Mondeo sized. I was really talking about the sedans as there is no longer a Falcon Station Wagon. There is a Commodore station wagon (same size as Falcon for sedan) though the Mondeo wagon has more boot space.

Australian size classes are closer to american classes. The Falcon and Commodore would be only slightly shorter than a Mercedes S-class, Jaguar XJ or BMW 7 series, and are just as wide and tall. Both were previously available in short and long wheelbase variants, with the long wheelbases being used for wagons and limousine models. Ford discontinued the Fairlane and LTD limousines, as their sales were uncompetitive with the Holden Statesman and Chrysler 300C. Consequently the Falcon wagon has gone too, as it shared the same long wheelbase platform that the limousines used. Curiously, this meant that previously, the Ford limousine models shared the wagon's leaf springs, instead of having the technically superior coil suspension of the basic Falcon sedans. The Falcon wagon has been replaced with the Falcon-derived Territory four-wheel-drive.

Holden still makes long wheelbase limousines, and exports them to america, the middle east, and, I think, Korea or China. The Commodore wagon is now based on the shorter wheelbase sedan, instead of the limousine platform, for product placement purposes. Holden decided that conventional wagons could be saved by marketing them as sport-wagons. The Holden and HSV performance wagons are sort-of competitive with the Audi A6/S6 Avant, Mercedes-Benz E-class/E63 AMG Estate and BMW 5-series/M5 Touring wagons. The market for practical Holden wagons is now served by the Korean-made Captiva four-wheel-drive, instead of a Commodore derivative.

In terms of price, both are much cheaper than a European car of equivalent size. The engineering sophistication of both cars is good. The Commodore is quite sophisticated, and has a modern and well regarded platform and engine. The Falcon platform is highly respected, but the engine derives from a 1950's design, that is showing its age and is nearing replacement. Without a turbo, even the newest variant of the 4.0L inline six does not generate appreciably more power than Holden's base-model 3.0L V-6. While the structural and mechanical quality of both cars is good for the price (the Falcon engine in particular is smooth, and has a reputation for indestructibility), the interiors of both cars clearly demonstrate the budget to which they were built. Historically, some models of both cars have been astonishingly poorly built, but recent models from both companies seem to be pretty well screwed together.

MilesR,yes the 3.0L V6 makes the same amoutnof power as the 4.0L l6, though the 4.0L l6 tops out a bit above 6000rpm while the 3.0L V6 is above 6700rpm. Also the torque of the 4.0L l6 is much higher than the 3.0L V6 (391Nm vs 290Nm). All the 4.0L l6 needs is direct injection and higher rpm to achieve a lot more power. The 4.0L l6 engines are known for being a big lazy high torque engine with very good reliability.

[quote=acfsambo;982934]I thought the 3 series and A4 were Mondeo sized. [/quote]

That is probably because of the marketing spin of Audi and BMW....

I do not mean to be critical of the Falcon engine. There is nothing wrong with it. It is reliable, durable, well suited to the large, quiet car that it propels, and it manages quite good fuel consumption, if the claimed figures are to be believed. It is, however, also a long stroke engine, which will not benefit from increased rpm as much as the shorter stroke Commodore engine does. It will probably take more than direct injection and increased engine speed to make the specific power output competitive with any of the comparable Commodore, Toyota, Hyundai or Nissan V-6 engines. It is also very long, and has an iron block, both of which make it heavy. It is harder to package for handling and safety than a V-6, as there is practically no free space in the engine bay for changes to the engine position, or for crumple zones. These are all features that result from its origins, over half a century ago. That said, its large size and low cost give it competitive, attractive performance by any practical measure, and its smoothness, durability and low-speed torque are still strong selling points.