2008 Ford Falcon engine line-up
February 17, 2008 by George Skentzos
Ford Australia has returned with a significantly revised powertrain line-up, sporting a new generation of its proven inline-six and BOSS range of engines as well as two new transmissions which are available across the range.
The new FG Falcon engine range encompasses 4.0-litre I6, 4.0-litre I6 Turbo, 4.0-litre I6 E-Gas and 5.4-litre Boss V8 power plants mated to either a new six-speed manual or a new five-speed automatic, in lieu of the previous four-speed unit, on petrol sedans and utes.
“The comprehensive package of upgrades delivered with the all-new FG Falcon program has broadened the technological reach of the I6 and V8 engine families, building on the extensive engineering and development undertaken for BA and BF series Falcons.
Revisions to the iconic naturally aspirated 4.0-litre I6 engine has yielded more power, more torque and improved engine efficiency.
Maximum power has increased by 5kW to 195kW at 6000rpm, with more torque than any engine in its class – up 8Nm to 391 Nm at 3250 rpm, an advantage of more than 18 per cent compared to its direct competitor.
“The latest generation I6 engine has tremendous torque and driveability, with a flat torque curve and wide powerband at the top end as a result of all the new engine hardware and calibration developments that have been engineered for the FG Falcon program,” Ford Australia Powertrain Engineering Manager, Lee Kernich said.
An additional power boost can be achieved whilst running a higher octane fuel, liberating 198 kW and 409 Nm respectively when used with 95RON fuel.
One of the key sources of this increased performance has come from an all-new dual mode, split plenum composite intake manifold, incorporating a new electronic throttle body and fuel rail assembly.
The new manifold design increases peak power over the previous Barra 190 engine, as well as improving power delivery and drive ability through enhanced responsiveness to throttle inputs. Other benefits include improved fuel efficiency and sound quality, and a 4kg weight reduction by virtue of using composite materials in lieu of an aluminium casting.
The highly acclaimed turbocharged variant of the 4.0-litre I6 engine has received a major overhaul, now producing V8-rivaling performance figures.
Maximum power is up by 25 kW to 270 kW at 5250 rpm, while peak torque has increased by 53 Nm – or more than 11 per cent – to 533 Nm, which is available across a wide rev range from 2000 rpm – 4750 rpm.
Maximum turbocharger boost pressure has increased from 0.4 bar to 0.7 bar, or from 6 psi to 10 psi.
“With 80 per cent of the peak torque available all the way from 1250 rpm to 5750 rpm, the new I6 Turbo engine transforms the performance feel of our turbo models, delivering seamless power and fantastic responsiveness across all driving conditions,” Kernich concluded.
Complimenting the increased boost pressure, the new intercooler and ducting also delivers substantial gains, boasting a 50 per cent increase in intercooler core volume and size, a 40 per cent improvement in heat rejection and a 34 per cent reduction in flow restriction.
While the calibration of the I6 Turbo engine has been optimised to improve fuel economy, it also incorporates a transient over boost feature, as well as launch assist and adaptive variable camshaft timing (VCT) anti-lag technologies.
“The transient over boost feature allows the engine to over boost by up to 10 per cent for several seconds, increasing available engine torque for improved performance during driving events such as overtaking manoeuvres,” Ford Australia Powertrain Development Manager, David Mitchell said. “Manual transmission turbo models are also equipped with a launch assist anti-lag feature, which increases available engine torque for more consistent maximum launch acceleration, as well as reducing turbo and exhaust temperatures, and minimising turbo lag and clutch wear.”
The I6 Turbo engine also employs cylinder cut on gearshifts in automatic transmission vehicles, for improved shift timing and overall shift refinement. Shift times have been reduced by more than 50 per cent during wide-open throttle applications, giving a sportier shift feel via the shorter, sharper gearshifts.
The (arguably) flagship BOSS 290kW has made its transition into the FG Falcon XR8 range, producing maximum power of 290 kW at 5750 rpm and 520 Nm peak torque at 4750 rpm.
For the first time, the BOSS 290 engine is complimented by an all-new Semi Active Muffler (SAM) and exhaust system.
The SAM comprises a cylindrical valve that is mounted on the muffler end-plate protruding inside the intermediate muffler, which opens and closes to change the vehicle’s exhaust sound characteristics.
During low speed applications and cruising, exhaust gases pass through a baffle to reduce noise for optimum comfort, however the gasses are redirected during spirited applications of the throttle, allowing a full, throaty V8 sound quality.
Ford has likened the system to a similar one found in the Aston Martin V8 Vantage – arguably the world’s best sounding car.
The 5R55S five-speed is a new rear-wheel drive (RWD) automatic transmission, which has been designed in conjunction with Ford engineers in the USA and is produced in Bordeaux, France, for use in the new FG Falcon.
Revised gearing and software behaviour in performance mode offers instinctive gear selection without the need for driver input.
A back-out up-shift inhibit function holds the current gear for a short period of time after the throttle is released, preventing constant upshifting in performance situations such as balancing the throttle through a corner.
Specific transmission calibrations for the sedan and Ute allow for the sedan to be more performance-oriented, while the Ute has been optimised for its workhorse duties, such as carrying heavy loads and towing.
The new Tremec TR6060 six-speed manual transmission is a major upgrade of the previous T56 six-speed manual transmission comprising of three variations in gear rations for the I6 engine (Falcon Ute/Falcon XR6), I6 Turbo engine (XR6 Turbo) and V8 (XR8) for improved performance and a more defined sports feel.
Print it: 
Power is not merely marketing Adam…. Torque and Power are linked, in fact there is a formula for it which Ive forgotten. The Aurion has a better top end then Falcon, Falcon has better bottom end. BUT the Aurion is by no means an embaressment in its bottom end, it is afterall lighter then the Falcon so it doesnt need as much torque, so yes it does have less torque but the NET torque advantage isnt as big as some would like to think.
As for VE, I got a laugh out of your claims they didnt improve it, they improved handling out of sight and actually made a NEW Commodore… the Falcon will no doubt perform just as it looks, like a BF!
TP,
dont pretend you are a professor on the subject.
you dont “know” the formula but rather you had someone throw it at you on another post.
you still cant srgue though that the falcon has a reasonable torque advantage.
the torque advantage to the falcon is even greater at lower revs. overall it is 55nm odd, but at “usable” range say 2000rpm, the advantage is even greater again in favour of the falcon
Holden commodore VE is only a 4 star in world class safety. So what the hell did they spend there billion dollars on. There engines are gutless and trannys dont work properly. New FG is allready rated a 5 star in world class safety. Nowonder Ford is the best aussie made car in the world.
Regarding the amount that has and has not changed from BFII, if you visit the official Ford Australia site they go into great detail. The list(s) of differences is HUGE. Takes quite a while to read.
How about looking at that before saying its the same underneath fellas?
TP…
Again i ask you, list the carry over items in the current camry and commodore.
Torque is far more important than a difference of 5KW, use premium and the difference drops to 2KW.
Ever see Toyota marketing use torque figures?
Orion is a ONLY 10kg lighter than BF11, also remembering that when the new V6 does go into falcon by 2010 that engine will be lighter again, makes the VE seem overweight.
Also TP, have you driven an aurion? a BF11 or the NEW FG??
I just handed my Aurion work car back and the fuel consumption was no better than the BF i drove prior too.
Yeah perception vers reality once again.
The difference being i’d rather drive a RWD VE or BF if i had to put up with aurions no better fuel consumption.
It torque steers and doesn’t ride or handle as well.
Come back when you can actually drive these cars for REAL
Adam ,babe…….your wasting your breath.
He won’t listen to fact!
Opps i meant to say orion is only 10Kg heavier!
Bavarian Missile…
Your right, i guess ignorance is bliss!!
Well from my Experience ive kept a car length ahead on a XT on my aurion, and not to mention beating (0-100) a few more faster cars with their unfortunate not matching drivers.
Ive read and and yes from the Ford forums, that theyve seen stock aurions do 14.6 1/4 mile passes. There is also mention times of high sixes to low sevens for the 0-100 dash.
Theres videos on UTube but i’ll wouldnt bet my life on those videos there.
Im yet to go to time at the strip but would love to see the numbers my Aurion comes up with.
Also an Aurion with PULP gets around 204kw.As for fuel eco, i get 9.8-10.4 city/suburban driving which I do 80% of the time.
Thats my experience, im no Toyota fan or a fan soley on any Brand whatsoever, one day a brand may make good cars the next could be a POS. At the time when I got the Aurion, it was the only car
that did it for me, the VE, incomparable and the recalls put me off and the BF (comparably a Good car, but too taxi and evey jimmy round the block has one)
Only if the Aurion came in a rwd/awd platform and has the DFI engine from teh IS350 (same engine) I might turn to fanboy haha.
Mark my words…
ITS ALL OVER FOR THE FALCON…
Not anti-Ford-manufacture, just they should build something somebody wants to buy!!
Cheers
F-0
F-O…….
Geez your another Eeyore………just as well us Ford fans are Tiggers! hahaha…….
For you TP:
Power = torque * angular velocity.
So yes, they are related.
Arrrrrrr.Ross our techno guru ! Watto had a question the other day on the difference between the way HP is measured Din ect .I answered as best as I could but you would have done a better job for him.
Yes Ross I knew it was something like that.
Andrew as Ive said a million times, RWD lose more power to the wheels, so yes based on paper figures Falcon beats Aurion… little less power, more torque. However using common sense, it has 150kg more weight offsetting to an extent this extra power and RWD will lose more power to the wheels. Once you factor this in, the Falcon wont be faster and as Ive said previously, I think this is prity sad given the differences in engine size.
Adam re fuel consumption how accurate do you really think your driving is? Somehow I will go off official figures under controlled conditions… not someones inconsistent driving which returns varying figures. You say its not great, many Aurion owners say its better. Whos right? Official figures is all I go off.
* offsetting torque
Yep, I read in a comparo somewhere between Ford and Holden that Holden using a more conservative method .ie. 270kw in SS might be almost the same a 280 in XR8. But I also heard on FAF that Ford are switching to the same way Holden measure so direct comparisons are more accurate???
Tp…
I drive all makes and models week to week. The rate at which the aurion i drove consumed fuel was no different than the BF falcon i drove just prior too.
meaning i had to put the same $ value of fuel back into aurion as i did falcon.
If fuel consumption is negligable between the two, i’d rather drive a falcon, simple.
If fuel consumption was a huge difference then i could see the point of a big FWD vehicle.
Now TP just to correct your bullsh*t in relation to weight differences between aurion and falcon.
The figures i foudn were…
aurion 1590KG
falcon 1672KG
Is that a difference of 150KG!!?? now add another 10KG for orion and the difference is what?? 92kg…not 150KG.
So for a stronger shell, split folding rear seats, a bigger engine, a bigger body and RWD a difference of 90KG exists, not bad hey…
Now if the 6speed ZF FG falcon is rated at 10.1L/100klm that 0.2 of litre of the lighter aurion while having far less torque. Not to mention the ZF trans is better than the 6 speed auto in the aurion, along with better handling dynamics. Oh the falcon can tow more too.
So when an aurion can easily trounce the FG for fuel consumption not just either 0.2 or 0.6 of a litre i might actually consider it. As it stands the difference is minute and not worth the argument.
Like i have said many times in the past if Toyota could actually sell an affordable RWD platform, come back to me.
As it stands Toyota sells a big FWD vehicle that doesn’t produce any impressive fuel consumption figures. If falcon and commodore are gas guzzlers, so is the 380, aurion AND camry 4cyl.
heck even the heavier mondeo can beat the camry 4cyl!
Take a look under an aurion/camry and tell me if Fg falcon beats it for tehcnical suspension layout and dynamics!?
Come back when you have driven these vehicles back to back like i do every damn day mate…
In actuall fact the fuel consumption difference that will show between aurion and FG falcon are far smaller than the fuel consumption difference that used to exist between falcon and commodore prior too AU and VT.
Frugal One…
hate to inform such an informed person but the falcon still outsells aurion and camry…so Ford IS building a vehicles people want to buy.
Did you know the current falcon dates back to 2002? did you know that falcon primary competition the VE dates back to 2006 alonf with the aurion/camry??
What was the total volume of falcon/territory vers camry/aurion sold locally again??
perhaps Toyota should start building a vehicle locally people want to buy as exports don’t count towards what people want to buy locally!!
Jeez some of you spit some crap out.
I know your ignorance will continue to blind you from the truth…
No response TP??
Frugal One, this is a car people want to buy!!!!
Mark my words…
IT’S NOT ANYWHERE NEAR OVER FOR THE FALCON…..
Ford are just building something somebody wants to buy!!
Cheers
Oz.
LOL.
TP,
every time you make these efficiency statements i keep throwing this question at you……..
how come the heavier, less efficient drive line driven (RWD) and apparently less technically advanced falcon can easily match the Aurion on fuel efficiency and 0-100 times?
you still have not been able to answer that for me.
im guessing yet again that you will simply move on and pretend you never saw the question posed like you always do
Ummm Andrew its a 4L engine… if the Aurion was 4L they would be able to get 228kw from that engine with similar fuel consumption. The issue Im most concerne with its fuel efficiency, its engine efficiency… getting max power for minimum fuel use. The Aurion is the clear winner. Adam again you cant hack your test isnt accurate, the diffference isnt huge yes but Aurion is faster while consuming alittle bit less fuel = winner.
TP…
What happened to the 150KG weight difference you kept sprouting about?
Another lie?
When you only drive one old camry, how can you judge i guess…
TP,
so what would you predict the fuel consumption of a 4.0L rear wheel driven and heavier camry/ aurion would be like?
bloody terrible i would guess.
the falcon does quite well to have so many theoretical things against it and can still match the camry/aurion for fuel figures
I recently brought a fg xr6t 6speed manaul , I have run 13.03 at wsid in a stock car . FORD have built the BEST falcon ever .
Thats pretty good going Scott,wait till it loosens up a bit more be even better! What mods can you sneak on it under Fords warranty watching eyes?
Exhaust& flash tune will bring it up too f6 power or just above I hope
why all ford products becomse used plastics material parts alot arround all cars!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????
God, Soon, Reality,Figjam ,Sob…….arent you back in bed yet.
We can spot your idiot remarks.