Ford Falcon BA XR6 Mark 11 Road Test

[Blitz_]

Australia is quite unique compared to England, its much larger compared to your postage stamp sized country . We actually go outside and tow boats trailers etc. Case in point was up the river the other day retrieving my boat from the ramp 1600kg, try pulling that out with you Mondeo no chance .
Aussies have grown up with large vehichles and the latest crop are great value for money and dynamically very good.If we are a backward country with our open spaces, blue skies ,temperate climate,sandy beaches and big cars. I wouldnt have it any other way. Now put on some sunscreen you white, pastey pom and keep out of that sun. Youre probably tanned and fit, but those generalisations can be quite cruel and incorrect.

owned

[motorsportnerd]

You've captured the difference between the typical "European & Japanese" cars and "American and Australian" cars right there in your review...

...a 4.0V8 in the Falcon vs >2.5 litre engines in the Mazda and Honda. Why should you need a 4.0 in a family car? I've not seen the performance figures but if you need a 250 odd BHP V8 to equal an I4 or V6 (is it around 8 seconds to 60?), what is that saying? And we wonder how we can stop global warming...! Also, why is it limited to 180km/h?)

Nota beat me to it in regards the fact the engine is a straight six (I said 24-valve in the review, which was a clue, but should have put straight-six as well, sorry).
The 0-100 time according to reports is about 7.7 secs (for the auto), which is roughly the same as that for a manual Mazda6 2.3 and slower than a manual Accord Euro 2.4. In-gear acceleration is different story as Nota points out.
Six clyinder, non-turbo Falcons are speed limited to 180km/h because that's what the driveshaft is rated up to to guarantee reliability. Besides, its pointless having the ability to go at even 180 km/h on a public road outside unlimited German autobahns. The V8s and XR6 Turbos get stronger driveshafts, hence no limiters. An XR6T or a Falcon GT will reach 240km/h plus.

In the UK, a car in that market with a 4.0 would be laughed at for being a backwards-thinking person's barge. for around 250 BHP most manufacturers would use something like a 2.0 Turbo or a 3 litre V6, not add another 2 cylinders and another litre of displacement...that just adds to weight, and the "lardass factor". I've got the image of a car cornering sideways like in so many '70s American films. Does the standard XT handle at all without the stiffened suspension?

Sideways cornering? Only if you turn the traction control off, have access to a racetrack and more driving ability than most people possess. Neither the XR6 or the XT will oversteer unless given extreme provacation - and for the safety of other road users that requires a race track.
The XT handles very well. Nota gave the raw figures. I can give you seat of the pants impression. Yes, the XT is biased towards comfort. However, given even allowing for that, the XT has excellent, well weighted steering with plenty of feedback, it turns in quickly (perhaps a touch too quick) and changes direction and responds to steering inputs quickly and smoothly. Ultimate handling tends towards understeer, and it rolls more than the XR6. The XR6 is certainly much better, but for a base model, the XT is damned good. In terms of the overall ride/handling compromise, there's not many better cars around - unless you pay lots more. And before you ask or compare it to smaller cars - the only smaller, more nimble cars I driven with better or equal handling than the XT are the Ford Mondeo you deride above, the Focus and the Mazda6. All products from the same engineering and chassis people - Ford and Mazda know how to make cars handle.

You also mentioned the build quality...there is no way I'd buy family car with strange noises coming from the diff. From all of the pictures I've seen of the Falcon, it looks like it's already 5 years old with an interior made from the cheapest plastic available. Then get into the Accord. If it's anything like the version we get here in the UK I'd strongly urge you to go for that.

The plastics on the BA Falcon are actually pretty good. Are you looking at pictures of the BA or the older AU design? BA interior is attached to my review.
Quality is an issue for Aussie manufacturers. I'll continue to slam them for it until they get it right. The quality concerns don't affect engine, suspension or electronic reliabiliy. They're more connected to a belief that when paying big dollars for a new car it should be close to perfect in the fit and finish area. That doesn't mean the rest of the package isn't right for the Aussie market, nor does it mean that the Falcon can't withstand huge distances. Plenty of Falcon taxis with 800,000km on the clock attest the the basic strength and reliability of the design.

I can imagine where the design and manufacture of the 2001 Mondeo we had to endure for a year went wrong - it's taking cues and thinking from overweight 70's American barges!

I own a '97 Mondeo - its no barge. Handling is up to the mark compared to many other cars I've driven. Nor is it poor quality. Its a nine year old car which still drives very tightly and still has impressively strong body integrity, and no rattles or groans and no reliability dramas. And I've driven the '01 model in NZ - which is even better. Either your car was a lemon, or you're unfairly comparing it to hot hatches or sports cars.

[Cyco]

For the guys here who havn't meet Clivey before, his father used to own a Ford and sounds like it was a bit of a lemon - so no car that has anything to do with the Blue Oval can possibly be any good or ever pretend to perform well.

[nota]

^^ and us perennial 'colonials' who have long-since discarded that obnoxiously stultifying yet typifyingly British class-structure religion of 'pay more Guv' are supposedly incapable of building affordable, good handing out-performing motor vehicles




ps: Thanks for acknowledgement MSN . Btw I edited my previous post to amend (emend?) content

[2ndclasscitizen]

I'd like to point something out to you there Clivey, the BA -> Falcon has double wishbone front suspension, which is not bad for a "backwards-thinking persons barge", and Control Blade IRS on the rear, which is what is also used in the Focus. And as for interior, when you're watching out for roos, or driving down a terrible road thats making the whole car rattle, I don't really pay attention to the dash

[clutch-monkey]

is it just me or is clivey a retard? as in really ignorant? i mean who bashes a car without even knowing what engine it has

[SlickHolden]

You've captured the difference between the typical "European & Japanese" cars and "American and Australian" cars right there in your review...

...a 4.0V8 in the Falcon vs >2.5 litre engines in the Mazda and Honda. Why should you need a 4.0 in a family car? I've not seen the performance figures but if you need a 250 odd BHP V8 to equal an I4 or V6 (is it around 8 seconds to 60?), what is that saying? And we wonder how we can stop global warming...! Also, why is it limited to 180km/h?

In the UK, a car in that market with a 4.0 would be laughed at for being a backwards-thinking person's barge. for around 250 BHP most manufacturers would use something like a 2.0 Turbo or a 3 litre V6, not add another 2 cylinders and another litre of displacement...that just adds to weight, and the "lardass factor". I've got the image of a car cornering sideways like in so many '70s American films. Does the standard XT handle at all without the stiffened suspension?

You also mentioned the build quality...there is no way I'd buy family car with strange noises coming from the diff. From all of the pictures I've seen of the Falcon, it looks like it's already 5 years old with an interior made from the cheapest plastic available. Then get into the Accord. If it's anything like the version we get here in the UK I'd strongly urge you to go for that.

I can imagine where the design and manufacture of the 2001 Mondeo we had to endure for a year went wrong - it's taking cues and thinking from overweight 70's American barges!

EDIT: By the way, can I have an example of an Australian post code so that I can view Honda's Australian website (it asks to find a dealer before it lets you see details on the cars)?

Quote 1:.... 4lt straight six.
And speed limiters are good for country's that have speed limits for safety

Quote 2:... It also comes with a Turbo. And last time i looked not many cars in the UK had it's performance, And little old backwards thinking Monaro went over to the UK and was tested on Top gear, And beat some shit brands called Chrysler and Jag, Not bad for a Aussie build car and it's not the best built but the favourite
And i drove a Ford Territory with Blade control IRS, Big SUV and it's handling was fantastic the IRS in the Fords is very good.

Quote 3:.. My brother owns a Ford BA Fairmont, And his diff has no noise, Cars built in Mass production can get some gremlins in the mix of 100,000's+ built.
My brothers intiria is just fine and it's not cheap plastic, Try and see one in the flesh then judge it cause you can't judge a car from a bloody picture!.

Quote 4:.. American cars of the 70's looked big and heavy, But infact they didn't weigh that much more then todays cars.

Quote 5:.. POQ

[SlickHolden]

is it just me or is clivey a retard? as in really ignorant? i mean who bashes a car without even knowing what engine it has

Someone hasn't had his mull for the week

[adrenaline]

I can't get anyone other then my brother and his wife to agree with me that it's so delayed

Ive said before that i agree on the throttle response lag with the tezza...I dont know about the falcon range though...

[adrenaline]

You've captured the difference between the typical "European & Japanese" cars and "American and Australian" cars right there in your review...

...a 4.0V8 in the Falcon vs >2.5 litre engines in the Mazda and Honda. Why should you need a 4.0 in a family car? I've not seen the performance figures but if you need a 250 odd BHP V8 to equal an I4 or V6 (is it around 8 seconds to 60?), what is that saying? And we wonder how we can stop global warming...! Also, why is it limited to 180km/h?

In the UK, a car in that market with a 4.0 would be laughed at for being a backwards-thinking person's barge. for around 250 BHP most manufacturers would use something like a 2.0 Turbo or a 3 litre V6, not add another 2 cylinders and another litre of displacement...that just adds to weight, and the "lardass factor". I've got the image of a car cornering sideways like in so many '70s American films. Does the standard XT handle at all without the stiffened suspension?

You also mentioned the build quality...there is no way I'd buy family car with strange noises coming from the diff. From all of the pictures I've seen of the Falcon, it looks like it's already 5 years old with an interior made from the cheapest plastic available. Then get into the Accord. If it's anything like the version we get here in the UK I'd strongly urge you to go for that.

I can imagine where the design and manufacture of the 2001 Mondeo we had to endure for a year went wrong - it's taking cues and thinking from overweight 70's American barges!

EDIT: By the way, can I have an example of an Australian post code so that I can view Honda's Australian website (it asks to find a dealer before it lets you see details on the cars)?

I sense fanboyism. *sighs*

Id prefer an aussie falcon over a wussy accord any day.

BTW what do the euros have as competition for HSV/ FPV at their price range?

[SlickHolden]

Ive said before that i agree on the throttle response lag with the tezza...I dont know about the falcon range though...

I forgot about that one, But they think it's worse in the Sedan.
I called herrod and spoke to them and they say it's all in the ECU, But a higher torque converter would help as the falcon takes off at about 1200rpm, They can fix that for faster take offs at around 1900rpm.

[motorsportnerd]

I sense fanboyism. *sighs*

Id prefer an aussie falcon over a wussy accord any day.

Be fair. An Accord Euro is not that wussy. While the Euro is not really a competitor to the Falcon, I'll indulge some comparisons anyway. A manual Accord Euro is about half a second quicker to 100 km/h than then non-turbo Falcon sixes (7.1 to 7.7 roughly). And the Euro has decent dynamics. It will also match or better the Falcon for refinement, comfort, safety, equipment levels. However, I'll agree that it is a less "macho" car in its styling and its certainly not comparable to the turbo Falcons or the V8s.
Having said all that, at an emotional level I prefer the Falcon. At an intellectual and rational level the Euro makes a great deal of sense. However, as I said before the Euro is too expensive for me to consider buying, whereas the equally good Mazda6 just comes into the price range I'd consider (we're talking used, not new).

[Clivey]

Nah, your post demonstrates your ignorance of Falcon - understandable from afar imo, but these biased prejudices you (unwashed?) Poms still need to believe in, do differ from reality

I admit that I've not really looked at Australian cars in detail because they just arent relevant for me; in the same way that i's not really relevant for you to compare a UK-spec Vauxhall Vectra with a VW Passat when you live in Australia. So yes, I don't know much about the car(s) and that's why I'm questioning them.

I don't "need" to believe in anything...it's not as if there's a case of national or continental pride at stake. I realise that in your country there is a market for that sort of vehicle for a reason:

1. I'm betting your fuel prices are nowhere near as crushing as ours (ours can quite often be in the range of $2.20 AUS a litre!) Therefore anything with over a 2.0 litre engine isn't considered essential for family motoring. Therefore you can afford to drive cars with bigger engines.

2. Australian cars (Ford and Holden at least) are incredibly cheap to buy...from doing a straighforward currency conversion, you guys get your 4.0 Falcons for the same price we get 2.0 Mondeos.

3. Australia is a massive country, you could drive on a motorway no doubt for '00s of miles, which is when a big engine with an auto box comes into it's own.

Just as in Europe (and the UK in particular) the opposite is true for the statements above (small countries with small roads, high fuel prices, expensive list prices for cars).

I would love for someone to tell me what I'm apparently biased against...personally I love the idea of a RWD 4.0 saloon car for that price but based on everything I've seen anywhere else, for a price like that you have to have a trade off, that's why I assumed handling was going to be one of them. If you said to someone outside of America or Australia "I'll give you a large 4.0 RWD saloon car for under £17k" they'd probably reply "What's the catch?" That's because previously in history we've become accustomed to cars like the Ford Crown Victoria from the USA. Cheap? Yes but a barge? Yes.

The best way for me to gain knowledge of these cars is to question them, therefore I'm not suprised at all that a bunch of you have all turned around to exclaim that the Falcon can handle etc. etc. But I am not, as Clutch said "bashing" the car.

(a) Falcon DOHC 4.0 is straight-six, the 5.4 SOHC & Quadcam are V8s

My bad, I was taking a quick look at the Falcon on the Ford Australia website and got the engine sized mixed up. What sort of fuel economy do they manage? We expect around 32 mpg (combined) from our family cars, anything else is very expensive to run in the UK. That's why Lexus (according to Whatcar? magazine) wont sell the 3.0 litre version of the new IS200 here, it wont sell because people can't afford to run it. They were better off focussing on the diesel version for this market.

(b) Many "backward-thinking" Aussie buyers still consider they 'need' a reasonably-sized engine, after laughing at gutless euro & jap twee-engined :gay: alternatives which can't pull the skin off a rice pudding - particularly if auto

Let's see your fuel economy figures. The "gutless" smaller engined cars start to make more sense when you have to pay out fuel costs...it's then you realise you don't actually "need" a huge engine, in the same way you don't "need" expensive clothing if it's going to break the bank.

(c) 99.9% of buyers here never attempt Global-Warming speeds of over 180km/h. A more pertinent factor for family car buyers is that insurance rates are likely reduced via limiters

If you drive pretty much any car over 180km/h you can guarantee you're not going to be particulatly concerned about fuel economy...the reason for the whole fuel thing was made clear above. I was just wondering why the car was limited.

Despite MSN's positive impressions of Falcon handling, your seem desperate to hang on to your stereotypes. Do yourself a favour and look at these test results of the "backward-thinking lardass" Falcon XT 6cyl auto of your imaginings, against reality via this same-day comparison from our leading Wheels magazine

MSN isn't exactly the law on cars so excuse me if I haven't read their reviews. I am simply just trying to gain information, and from that, yes the performance does seem impressive...but at what cost? I'm sure if that was the best way to make a car, hordes of other manufacturers would be doing the same thing now, as it is, Euro and Japanese manufacturers have built cars that are designed for their respective markets, just as Ford Australia and Holden have done.

[Edit] Wheels: BMW 330Ci
.. its magnificent 3.0-litre 170kw straight-six was no match for Falcon, which has an extra litre and packs 12kw/80Nm more, despite the Ford's 200kg greater mass. The fleet-spec Ford just out-grunts it.

If only it were as simple as that. Yes the Ford out-grunts the BMW...but how much more fuel is it using in doing so? Would it out-grunt a 4.0 BMW engine? Or even the 3.5 litre diesel? You have to realise there's more to cars than displacement and torque, although it is very nice to have.

It's like me saying "The Falcon's crap because it's 4.0 litre 6 isn't as fast or as powerful as BMW's 3.0 or TVR's 4.0 litre 6"...there's a lot more to consider than just that (the type of car and cost for a start).

[Clivey]

Australia is quite unique compared to England, its much larger compared to your postage stamp sized country . We actually go outside and tow boats trailers etc. Case in point was up the river the other day retrieving my boat from the ramp 1600kg, try pulling that out with you Mondeo no chance .
Aussies have grown up with large vehichles and the latest crop are great value for money and dynamically very good.If we are a backward country with our open spaces, blue skies ,temperate climate,sandy beaches and big cars. I wouldnt have it any other way. Now put on some sunscreen you white, pastey pom and keep out of that sun. Youre probably tanned and fit, but those generalisations can be quite cruel and incorrect.

Well that would be appropriate for someone who thinks that all Aussie cars are the same...If you read my post you'll see I was mainly asking about the car and questioning my own first thoughts. And about the "backwards-thinking comments", you'd have to be backwards (or so rich you don't have to care) to buy a 4.0 family saloon in the UK, unless you were willing to suck your bank manager's...never mind.

[Clivey]

Nota beat me to it in regards the fact the engine is a straight six (I said 24-valve in the review, which was a clue, but should have put straight-six as well, sorry).
The 0-100 time according to reports is about 7.7 secs (for the auto), which is roughly the same as that for a manual Mazda6 2.3 and slower than a manual Accord Euro 2.4. In-gear acceleration is different story as Nota points out.
Six clyinder, non-turbo Falcons are speed limited to 180km/h because that's what the driveshaft is rated up to to guarantee reliability. Besides, its pointless having the ability to go at even 180 km/h on a public road outside unlimited German autobahns. The V8s and XR6 Turbos get stronger driveshafts, hence no limiters. An XR6T or a Falcon GT will reach 240km/h plus.

Gotcha, this is the info I need...

Sideways cornering? Only if you turn the traction control off, have access to a racetrack and more driving ability than most people possess. Neither the XR6 or the XT will oversteer unless given extreme provacation - and for the safety of other road users that requires a race track.
The XT handles very well. Nota gave the raw figures. I can give you seat of the pants impression. Yes, the XT is biased towards comfort. However, given even allowing for that, the XT has excellent, well weighted steering with plenty of feedback, it turns in quickly (perhaps a touch too quick) and changes direction and responds to steering inputs quickly and smoothly. Ultimate handling tends towards understeer, and it rolls more than the XR6. The XR6 is certainly much better, but for a base model, the XT is damned good. In terms of the overall ride/handling compromise, there's not many better cars around - unless you pay lots more. And before you ask or compare it to smaller cars - the only smaller, more nimble cars I driven with better or equal handling than the XT are the Ford Mondeo you deride above, the Focus and the Mazda6. All products from the same engineering and chassis people - Ford and Mazda know how to make cars handle.

Everything other than the stuff in bold is useful to me but your comments about your Mondeo make me wonder if we're talking about the same car...I'm talking about the one that looks like Kermit the frog after a particularly nasty sledgehammer incident (as in my attachment). We (my family) have had the opportunity to drive three for quite a while, two Mk2 Mondeos (kermit), one 1.8 LX (dad's company car for a year), a 2.5V6 Ghia X Saloon and a Mk3 2.0 LX. The Mk3 is a massive improvement (aside from the indicator noise that sounds like a constipated duck) but the Mk2's were appauling in every way...they were poor handling cars with build quality consistent with sticking the parts together with spit.

The plastics on the BA Falcon are actually pretty good. Are you looking at pictures of the BA or the older AU design? BA interior is attached to my review.
Quality is an issue for Aussie manufacturers. I'll continue to slam them for it until they get it right. The quality concerns don't affect engine, suspension or electronic reliabiliy. They're more connected to a belief that when paying big dollars for a new car it should be close to perfect in the fit and finish area. That doesn't mean the rest of the package isn't right for the Aussie market, nor does it mean that the Falcon can't withstand huge distances. Plenty of Falcon taxis with 800,000km on the clock attest the the basic strength and reliability of the design.

I'm looking at the pics attached to post 1. It looks tacky and the interior looks "not-very-well-put together" when compared to, say a VW Passat, Vauxhall Vectra or Honda Accord. Yes, the mechanicals may be very good, tried and tested and that's all fine but is it one of these cases where trim rattles and squeaks after 20,000 miles?

For that price though it's justifiable, you'd pay over twice the price listed on Ford Australia's website for a genuine alternative car in the UK. It's much like our Corsa; it's got squeaky door trim and the doors rattle as they close but we paid just over £7k for it, which is a bargain over here.

I own a '97 Mondeo - its no barge. Handling is up to the mark compared to many other cars I've driven. Nor is it poor quality. Its a nine year old car which still drives very tightly and still has impressively strong body integrity, and no rattles or groans and no reliability dramas. And I've driven the '01 model in NZ - which is even better. Either your car was a lemon, or you're unfairly comparing it to hot hatches or sports cars.

I was mainly comparing our mondeo to our 1999 Vauxhall Vectra GLS, which was rock solid even after 125,000 miles...with only a squeaky driver's seat. The Mondeos were all absolute crap in comparison, and to Cyco: it wasn't just the one Mondeo that was a lemon: Both Mk2s were pieces of crap and so was our old Sierra...I'll explain my views on Fords later...