Ford Forums banner

Today's DRIVE - low-fat ford & 6spd auto confirmed

4K views 30 replies 20 participants last post by  sandmanls1 
#1 ·
Dont expect an all aluminium body for BA2, but we are getting a slimmer falcon. While Richard Parry Jones was here for the AUS GP, he basically confirmed that new materials, stronger yet lighter major body structures will be used to shed weight. No mention of how much but a few quotes from the man himself...

"With the BA, we knew what we had to do to get the job done."

"The initial reaction is the thing seems to have gone very well, and with it, the reputation of Ford Australia is on the up-swing."

"The straight six engine has a lot of character with it's new twin-cam cylinder head, but the car still has some performance and economy issues."

The last paragraph says...

While in Australia, Parry-Jones will test some of Ford's new performance Falcon's. He notes the "performance car culture" here, and says that although the core model of the range must be right to ensure successfull sales, "you have to have the hero car right, too".
 
#4 ·
While we are all waiting to see the performance times drop after a weight loss on the BAll, i dont think much could be done to the weight apart from swapping materials.

They weigh that much for a reason, they have a 80% stiffer chassis for better handling and safety.
They have more features standard than other cars, making it a better buy.
They have heavier motors, but are more linear and practical in the way they drive.
Frankly those who still bag the weight increase sh$t me to tears..look at the facts dudes at WHY it is heavier.

If the new shape commy in a few yrs doesnt weigh a heap more, it'll get a caning in the safety and handling department. They will be ecven more behind in technologies than they are now. You cant make a car safer without not adding weight.

On the subject of 6-speed auto's, expect the 0-400m & 0-100km/hr time to drop by a heap....
 
#5 ·
While in Melbourne for the FPV weekend, I took the tour of the Broadmeadows plant with the NSW FPV-Tickford club.

Although much was blocked off to hide the FEU Territory's as they went through the factory, in the body stamping building AusXH and I spotted a few door panels clearly marked with the labels 'composite material test' in amongst the machines as the small train drove us around.

If you get bonnet, boot, doors, front quarters and roof panel all made with lightweight composites, you'd be looking at a fairly sizable potential weight loss.

Cheers
Jason
 
#7 ·
Were did this 6 speed auto come into the quote? From what I have heard from my local and trusted transmisson guy is that there will not be a 6 speed. He found out by asking his buddy at BTR. There is quite a possiblity that it would be a 5 speed, not a 6.

Sorry to disapoint sum, but don't forget these are still rumors and we will need to wait to find out. Even if it's not a 6 speed, a 5 speed will do me just fine.

Alex
 
#11 ·
Well if that's true you can say goodbye to BTR in Australia.

With the T5 on it's last legs (can it really be that long before all the manuals are Trememc boxes), if the Aussie 4 speed gets the flick too I'd imagine that there wont be a viable market left for a gearbox maker in Australia.

Sad really that they couldn't lift their game and the workers will pay with their jobs.
 
#13 ·
Weight loss:
-6 speed lighter than BTR 4 speed. Also better, newer, 2 extra gears, world class etc
-alloy suspension components.. front and rear suspension arms to no longer be cast iron. Forged aluminium or maybe some magnesium component. Also the blade bar and links could be made from alloys..
This means lighter car, better handling, more ridgid, better NVH levels, better ride quality..
- Some new alloy and high strength steel pressings and castings around the car, cross members, supports, also key safety parts.. Safer, quieter, stronger..

BTR might licence a gearbox design for GM/Dyna or ZF or getrag or tremec and build them locally. Could be a while for that to happen.. If not it by by time..

Basically BA II will be another great improvement on the BA.. Lighter, more economical, better NVH, better handling, faster, quicker and even better value. With the BA being such a great car, BAII sounding like anothe amazing improvement, what does BA III Hold in store? Will there be a BAIII? Or Will BA II have a long reign, with BA III being a cosmetic update..
 
#14 ·
You cant make a car safer without not adding weight.
So if the BAII is lighter will it not be as safe as the BA?

If yes, why can't Commodore's do the same?

It appears funny to me that you say we need this extra weight for safety though this weight won't exist in BAII. So therefore we will have a faster less safe car? Some food for thought.

My thoughts are that BAII will be lighter and as safe as BA if not safer. Therefore the Commodore doen't need to put on a heap of weight to be safer, they just need to be smarter. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
#15 ·
I spoke to a a ford engineer some months ago and he told me that they were testing the jag 6 speed auto (zf) and if cost worked out they would go for it
 
#16 ·
I don't see any trouble for BTR if Ford decide to go for the ZF. BTR have recently been taken over by another company that i wont reveal, but they will diversy there business. BTR would be pretty stupid to rely on Ford to keep the company afloat.
 
#17 ·
Roscoe said:
So if the BAII is lighter will it not be as safe as the BA?

If yes, why can't Commodore's do the same?

It appears funny to me that you say we need this extra weight for safety though this weight won't exist in BAII. So therefore we will have a faster less safe car? Some food for thought.

My thoughts are that BAII will be lighter and as safe as BA if not safer. Therefore the Commodore doen't need to put on a heap of weight to be safer, they just need to be smarter. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Time and money is what is required to develop body pressings using lighter weight/higher strength materials. If the BA was a "clean sheet of paper" design then it would have been far easier to keep weight down with a new floor pan etc...To have tried to keep weight down using lighter material now would have delayed release of BA far too long. Much time is needed computer modelling using Ford's supercomputers in the US and I bet this is happening as we speak. Pity I couldn't borrow some of this computer power to play some sim games.
 
#19 ·
Time and money is what is required to develop body pressings using lighter weight/higher strength materials. If the BA was a "clean sheet of paper" design then it would have been far easier to keep weight down with a new floor pan etc...To have tried to keep weight down using lighter material now would have delayed release of BA far too long. Much time is needed computer modelling using Ford's supercomputers in the US and I bet this is happening as we speak. Pity I couldn't borrow some of this computer power to play some sim games.
So therefore the new Commodore doesn't need to put on a heap of weight to be safer? Correct? Exactly the point I was trying to make.

Yes, wouldn't mind one of those super computers myself...
 
#20 ·
You would be right provided the new commie is significantly new especially in the floor pan, I don't know much about what the future holds there. VYII, I don't think is anything major underbody wise, although externally I think it needs to be. If the Commodore were to try and match the BA's body strength and ridigity using the current floor pan and not go the light weight/high strength metal option it would then obviously gain weight just like BA. If any of the next models are clean sheet designs and I don't think the next all new Commodore will be a carbon copy of Euro GM with aussie mods to back and front, (as was the history to now) then it should be a given that a major effort to keep weight down is the plan. Even the MD of GMH is not that foolish to rubbish the BA fuel use/weight gain and have his own next "all new" design follow suit. (Me raises eyebrows in deep rethink) Or is he?
 
#23 ·
Roscoe said:
So therefore the new Commodore doesn't need to put on a heap of weight to be safer? Correct? Exactly the point I was trying to make.
It is a good point that you make....the new commy doesnt really have to be as heavy as the BA, it all comes down to how well they engineer the update. But with a much lighter shell consisting of lighter, less rigid materials, and a glued-in plastic firewall, they got plenty of engineering to go yet to make it safer and a better handler. In the latest MOTOR, they say that while the Holden's are much lighter than the BA, they drive like a much heavier car. Good engineering by the chassis engineers at Ford...

My guess is that it will be heavier, maybe not 1800kg's but alot more than what it is now.

Ford would of done their homework on the engineering of the car and tried to cut weight where they can, but obviously that costs more money, more time, more research and ultimately the longer delay of the model release.
 
#25 ·
So I wonder when we're going to see that once talked about test Falcon (forget what magazine) in production, where the diff ratio is 2.4 or something, and the 'box ratios are spread out close together?
I wonder if we could go back to a 1;1 gearbox ratio in top gear?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top