Ford Falcon EcoBoost: Launch Review

Not so much
>> Ultimately lacks six-cylinder charisma
>> Slightly lower performance
>> Turbo lag

OVERVIEW
-- No six please, we're British
The engine powering Ford's new Falcon EcoBoost was originally developed in Europe -- specifically at Ford's research centre at Dunton in the UK. It was always planned that the 2.0-litre four, turbocharged and direct-injected, would replace five and six-cylinder engines in Ford's range of larger vehicles. And Britain, one of the first countries in Europe to apply punitive tax measures for vehicles that emit high levels of CO2, was a natural Centre of Expertise for the development of the new engine.

The situation unfolding in Australia is markedly different from Europe's. Here, there hasn't been the same level of concern about climate change and the part played in that by hothouse gases like CO2. In fact, anthropogenic climate change remains an issue hotly contested in our country.

But there's no such debate over fuel prices. Since pump prices are expected to continue rising into the foreseeable future, along with gas and electricity charges, Australians are already adjusting their lifestyle choices (including the type of car they own) to offset the gathering expenses. Ford has it in mind to sell new-car buyers -- and particularly fleets -- a vehicle with all the traditional virtues of the company's large Falcon sedan, without the running costs. Also, it helps that the new car promotes its (fleet) owner as a good corporate citizen -- one that cares about the environment. Enter the EcoBoost Falcon, with a turbocharged four-cylinder engine and direct injection.

PRICE AND EQUIPMENT
-- When less is more
Ford has priced the new EcoBoost variants (three of them: XT, G6 and G6E) at the same level as the six-cylinder equivalents. The basic XT with the 2.0-litre GTDi (Gasoline Turbocharged Direct Injection) engine is priced at $37,235. That's the same price as the six-cylinder Falcon XT and what you're getting for your freedom of choice amounts to lower running costs and an engine that's technically more advanced than the Geelong-built six.

The mid-range G6 is priced at $40,835 for both four and six-cylinder variants. It's interesting to note that the better-equipped G6 is now nearly as affordable as the last of the Falcon XT variants prior to the MkII upgrade. Ford has positioned the G6E at the peak of the EcoBoost model range, again at the same price as its six-cylinder sibling: $46,735. Unlike the six-cylinder cars, there are no XR6 EcoBoost variants, and at a stroke, that says much about Ford's marketing aspirations for the turbo four Falcon.

MECHANICAL
-- Low-blow turbocharging a high point
Based on an original Mazda design, the all-alloy 2.0 GTDi engine is a DOHC inline four in an oversquare configuration. Its bore and stroke dimensions measure 87.5x83.1mm for power at higher engine speeds, but the combination of turbocharging, direct injection and variable valve timing provide a broader spread of torque further down in the rev range as well. Ford has named the variable valve timing system Ti-VCT, for Twin Independent Variable Cam Timing.

With the engine's turbocharger spinning away at up to 200,000rpm, it supplies air boosted up to 13 psi into the engine through high-flow inlet ports. All the while the direct injection system delivers fuel through a stainless steel rail at a pressure of 150bar and the injectors each spray through seven jets for optimal dispersion. Through the cooling effect of the direct injection system, the engine can run a compression ratio of 9.3:1, which is considered reasonably high for a turbocharged petrol powerplant.

A further advantage of the direct injection system, according to Ford, is that fuel won't puddle around the tops of the intake valves, as is the case with conventional port injection systems. As a consequence, the direct injection engine doesn't create any emissions spikes on start-up. Turbo lag, a common complaint associated with turbocharged engines is reduced to a large extent with the direct injection system of the EcoBoost setup, Ford also claims.

Ford Australia sources the Falcon's 2.0-litre EcoBoost from an engine plant in Valencia, Spain. In the Australian market, where Euro 4 is the current applicable emissions standard, the EcoBoost engine readily meets that target, but the engine is already meeting the Euro 5 standard in the Ford Galaxy and S-Max models sold in Europe, so upcoming Euro 5 regs in Australia won't pose a problem for this particular Falcon engine. The 2.0-litre EcoBoost also powers Volvo's S60 and V60, plus Ford's own Mondeo, but this is the first rear-wheel drive application to reach the market anywhere in the world, although Ford has conducted testing of the engine in the F250 truck range sold in North America.

Other changes to Falcon for the EcoBoost variants include the coupling of a ZF HP21 six-speed automatic transmission. This is distinct from the HP26 transmission that Ford fits to six-cylinder Falcon variants and the petrol Territory. According to Ford Australia powertrain engineer David Mitchell, the HP21 box is a more efficient unit devised specifically for applications like the EcoBoost's. It's lighter than the HP26 and also features a revised torque converter.

Springs and damper settings have been adjusted to suit the lighter, shorter engine. The weight distribution for the EcoBoost Falcon is better than the six-cylinder car's, according to Ford's suspension guru, Alex de Vlugt. To capitalise on the improved balance, the EcoBoost Falcon G6 is fitted with a smaller diameter anti-roll bar at the rear, and the Falcon XT comes with a larger diameter anti-roll bar at the front -- up from 31 to 32mm. Ride height for the XT has been reduced by 13mm also and the base model rides on 16-inch wheels shod with low-rolling resistance Goodyear tyres. Ford recommends the 215/60 R16 tyres be inflated to 38PSI, as opposed to 33PSI for other Falcon variants. The one change made to the steering system for the EcoBoost variants is a variable displacement power steering pump.

SAFETY
-- Furthering five-star form
Ford began with a five-star ANCAP rating for the FG Falcon, but the company claims that the MkII upgrade builds on that with improved crash safety. The standard side curtain airbags it was argued the FG Falcon should have boasted on its release in 2008 are now included in the spec list for the MkII models. And Ford has also committed to reverse-parking sensors for the entire Falcon sedan range. In addition to detecting objects at the rear of the car when reverse gear is selected, the system displays a spatial graphic in the Interior Command Centre screen.

On the active safety front, the new Falcons come with a new 'Generation 9.0' Dynamic Stability Control (DSC) system which bundles Traction Control (TCS), Emergency Brake Assist (EBA) and Anti-lock Braking System (ABS).

COMPETITORS
-- Mondeo could spoil the party
What the EcoBoost Falcon has going for it is the combination of large-car packaging, straightline performance, rear-drive configuration and four-cylinder economy. Ford may have found an exclusive market niche with the car, but is such a niche profitable enough? In a Venn diagram, there would be some overlap of the Falcon EcoBoost subset with the subset of 3.0-litre SIDI Commodore derivatives. The XT Ford is an obvious match-up for the VE Omega and the EcoBoosted G6 is also ready to take on the Berlina with the same engine. Even the G6E, up against Holden's Calais, with its 3.6-litre V6, will cope well enough in the performance stakes.

But there are other subsets of rivals to the EcoBoost Falcon. These include cars as different in nature as the Toyota Camry Hybrid, Nissan Maxima 250 and diesel sedans like Mazda6, the Peugeot 508 and the Volkswagen Passat. One other rival to the EcoBoost Falcon, of course, is its stablemate, the Mondeo.

ON THE ROAD
-- More driving enjoyment for sales reps
Tasmania is an increasingly popular place for new model launches; Ford being the latest company to choose the apple isle -- in this case for the launch of the EcoBoost Falcon.

On the run from Hobart to Baskerville Raceway and on the return leg to the Tassie capital, the clearest difference between the low-spec four-cylinder Falcon XT and the flagship G6E was NVH. Unlike the bogger, the G6E delivers none of the low-rev vibration encountered when the six-speed automatic transmission drops into a higher gear. And road noise, courtesy of the tyres is substantially reduced, even on country roads.

As motoring.com.au Editor in Chief, Mike Sinclair wrote of the EcoBoost engine during his brief drive of a pre-production car last year, the four-cylinder's engine note is far from musical. It's not thrashy and it is refined enough to encourage the driver to wind it out to the redline (and it gets there quite quickly also), but it lacks the aural charm of similar engines from Volkswagen, for instance. That, frankly, is a good reason to settle for the G6E variant, rather than the XT. It just does a better job of insulating the passengers from the noise, although not so very much that you won't hear the whoosh of the turbo working away when the throttle's wide open.

Other than that, there's little to pick between the two variants that doesn't also apply to their respective six-cylinder counterparts. Both corner and perform much the same, which is to say they're highly responsive to the tiller and the ride/handling balance sets something of a high standard for most imports and locals in the same price bracket. Steering rack rattle has been a long-standing objection where the FG Falcon is concerned. If it has been eradicated — and there was no sign of it from the EcoBoost cars — that may be due to the lighter engine in the nose, as much as changes to the Falcon's MkII underpinnings.

Ford provided a brief drive (at Baskerville Raceway) of two six-cylinder Falcon variants, petrol and EcoLPI, against the EcoBoost four. The difference was quite distinct where cornering was concerned. Both the sixes felt significantly heavier in the nose, which is to be expected and there was naturally more immediate throttle response, which helps push the Falcon out the other end of corners quicker. The turbo lag present in the EcoBoost engine's power delivery means the four-cylinder can't always provide the driver that ability to press on immediately from the apex.

For all the four-cylinder's lighter weight, the car's front tyres were inclined to scrub a little on the exit from corners around Baskerville. Different wheel/tyre combinations would account for that (and low-rolling-resistance tyres, specifically, in the case of the EcoBoost model). Ford dynamics guru Alex de Vlugt told motoring.com.au that the racetrack will naturally show up characteristics like this, but that's the price paid for the optimum ride and handling on public roads.

A straightline performance test from a standing start to 100km/h revealed that the EcoBoost Falcon was about half a second slower than the EcoLPI model. The former reached 100km/h in 7.49 seconds and the latter got there in 6.99 seconds. At 7.03 seconds, the petrol six was slower than the EcoLPI, but only just. Of the time the EcoBoost four took, most of that half second's difference could be attributed to turbo lag during the standing start. If, instead of just mashing the accelerator pedal, the writer had built up revs and launched the EcoBoost in a serious way, the time would have come down, but the EcoBoost Falcon was just driven like typical Fred would drive it, as were the two sixes. Other journos, who did wind up the turbo before releasing the brakes, were recording times below seven seconds in the EcoBoost car.

Fuel consumption varied for the two EcoBoost cars driven. Driven more sedately over open country roads — with the tacho registering below 2000rpm at 100km/h — the XT used less than 9.0L/100km, according to the on-board trip computer. Given more of a flogging, the G6E was typically using above 9.0L/100km (9.6 was the worst figure seen), but the average fell to 8.9 in the final stages of the leg, as the car and its crew drove gently through Hobart.

All the facts and figures ultimately tell you little about the car though. There's a marked difference between the traditional Falcon six and the four-cylinder EcoBoost variants. For a long time Ford has been steadily refining the Falcon six. Since the BA (and even the AU before that), the Geelong-built six has been trading some of that asthmatic but lazy low-end torque of the OHV sixes and even the early (EA) SOHC engines, for more mid-range power and a willingness to rev. EcoBoost has taken that one — major — step further. While the car powered by the turbo four can keep up with the traffic without ever troubling the upper reaches of the rev range, it is obviously an engine that delivers that much more once the driver begins exploring the last 500 or so revs up to the 6500rpm redline.

Which leads us to wonder whether Ford should consider a sporting variant based on the EcoBoost Falcon, since much the same powerplant sits crossways under the bonnet of the Focus ST.

Read the latest news and reviews on your mobile, iPhone or PDA at carsales' mobile site…