We can spot your idiot remarks.

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

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…

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

IT’S NOT ANYWHERE NEAR OVER FOR THE FALCON…..

Ford are just building something somebody wants to buy!!

Cheers

Oz.

LOL.

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…

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…

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.

Power = torque * angular velocity.

So yes, they are related.