Any market for something like this in the US? Ford FG Falcon Cab-Chassis

[dug777]

http://carpoint.com.au/car-review/2983381.aspx

Entire range:

http://www.ford.com.au/servlet...age&site=FOA&c=DFYPage

I have to admit I've a soft-spot for the styling, especially of the XR6 T and the XR8, and they're 5-star ANCAP with DSC and optional side-airbags.

I'm head-over-heels about the XR6 T motor of course, but that's another story (in FPV F6 guise it's a 310kW @ 5250rpm/565Nm @ 1950-5200rpm sledgehammer).

 

[Demon-Xanth]

There is the G8 ST coming out. But generally people that need vehicles like that just get pickups.

...or mod an M5 http://jalopnik.com/5060168/st...ute-now-in-full-detail

 

[zoiks]

That totally looks retarded.

 

[sdifox]

looks like something you'll find in Cuba. My memory of Falcon was Argentine Police Cars.

I've actually seen a few with bullet holes right after a jewellery heist. I was in school at the time and there was a cop running down the street telling people to duck down. He even fired into the air...

After the robbers got rubbed out, we walked by the crime scene and the whole place, including the immediate neighbouring walls were riddled with bullet holes, so did a few of the Falcons.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: zoiks
That totally looks retarded.

Practical however (but looks are everything with commercial vehicles...) 😉

A vast proportion of ute work (in fact, the overwhelming majority) doesn't need 4WD or a vast ground clearance, and indeed a nice low tray makes life far easier.

Much more pleasant to drive as well.

 

[PingSpike]

I see the value of something like that, if it can get reasonable mileage when unladen.

My quick conversions say that it gets 20 miles to the gallon. I don't know if thats combined (I'd guess?), highway, city or what the story with that is, I'm not familier with how there mileage ratings generally stack up.

I'd say 5000lb towing is about average for a compact 2WD truck over here.

2700lb payload seems pretty nuts though. AFAIK like 1500lbs is about the best you get out of a compact 2WD? I haven't really encountered an example that was much better then that.

This is a similar vehicle to the el camino/ranchero "sports cars with a truck bed" vehicle that the US had in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Americans just buy a truck these days instead...but frankly I'd prefer the more car like ride and probably improved highway mileage to the...whatever it is that the truck offers? Better looks I suppose.

I'd prefer something more like the old dodge rampage...FWD gets around better in the snow, and I can borrow my bother's GMC Sierra for the heavy duty hauling, if I ever need to do any.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I see the value of something like that, if it can get reasonable mileage when unladen.

My quick conversions say that it gets 20 miles to the gallon. I don't know if thats combined (I'd guess?), highway, city or what the story with that is, I'm not familier with how there mileage ratings generally stack up.

I'd say 5000lb towing is about average for a compact 2WD truck over here.

2700lb payload seems pretty nuts though. AFAIK like 1500lbs is about the best you get out of a compact 2WD? I haven't really encountered an example that was much better then that.

This is a similar vehicle to the el camino/ranchero "sports cars with a truck bed" vehicle that the US had in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Americans just buy a truck these days instead...but frankly I'd prefer the more car like ride and probably improved highway mileage to the...whatever it is that the truck offers? Better looks I suppose.

I'd prefer something more like the old dodge rampage...FWD gets around better in the snow, and I can borrow my bother's GMC Sierra for the heavy duty hauling, if I ever need to do any.

As far as I'm aware they are fair dinkum 1 tonner (+ in this case).

Remember they're not particularly compact.

Fuel consumption will be combined, those I6s are extremely efficient hwy beasts, espcecially with the 6 speed manual.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: zoiks
That totally looks retarded.

Practical however (but looks are everything with commercial vehicles...) 😉

A vast proportion of ute work (in fact, the overwhelming majority) doesn't need 4WD or a vast ground clearance, and indeed a nice low tray makes life far easier.

Much more pleasant to drive as well.

People here use small mini-van based cargo vans for that stuff. Or station wagons.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

the american market wants nothing to do with el camino's, BRAT's and the like.

 

[nakedfrog]

My god... it's like someone took an El Camino and rammed it with the Ugly Mobile.

We do have the Subaru Outback Baja, or did recently, which is similar (but much less repugnant)
There used to be body kits to turn a VW Beetle into something similar, and even THOSE looked better than this monstrosity.

 

[Throckmorton]

Worst of both worlds. Low ground clearance and durability of a car, gas mileage of a truck.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Worst of both worlds. Low ground clearance and durability of a car, gas mileage of a truck.

*Beats head against wall*

They are designed for work (see that 1.2 tonne payload, think you could do that with a standard falcon rear end?), so they should be just as durable as a clunky tonka truck pick-up.

Ground clearance isn't huge, but then I would wager that the vast majority of vehicles of this type don't need to ford huge rivers or clamber over rocky slopes.

The mileage is pretty much identical to the sedan Falcon.

Low tray, as mentioned, is a huge asset for your back too.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: zoiks
That totally looks retarded.

Practical however (but looks are everything with commercial vehicles...) 😉

A vast proportion of ute work (in fact, the overwhelming majority) doesn't need 4WD or a vast ground clearance, and indeed a nice low tray makes life far easier.

Much more pleasant to drive as well.

People here use small mini-van based cargo vans for that stuff. Or station wagons.

I understand weather plays a part, here tradesmen almost exclusively use utes with lockable boxes built into the tray.

 

[MovingTarget]

I think that there is. Many people need a vehicle that will do light work, yet also need something efficient enough as a daily driver. I see plenty of the old el-caminos, etc riding around occasionally. Besides, a true i6 and rwd on a car? That would be a hit no matter how you chop the rear end.

 

[radioouman]

Where's the rear seat? If a pickup doesn't have a rear seat, it is hardly useful (at least to consumers).

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: radioouman
Where's the rear seat? If a pickup doesn't have a rear seat, it is hardly useful (at least to consumers).

I know plenty of people that don't have a rear seat in their trucks. They use them as trucks, not as an alternative to a car or van so their egos aren't bruised from a wussy vehicle.

Anyways, to get that hauling and towing capacity on something with that low of clearance and the limits that place on acceptable suspension travel (you can't really drive down the road in a car with the suspension compressed 3 inches but on some trucks you wouldn't notice) it must have ludicrously hard springs.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: radioouman
Where's the rear seat? If a pickup doesn't have a rear seat, it is hardly useful (at least to consumers).

Really? I disagree. Last time I looked around most people bought regular cabs...I'd wager a guess they're the biggest sellers. Even extended cabs, the jump seats are usually a joke...a kid can ride to the nearest store in them, but thats about it. Crew cabs aren't common and their shitty microbeds aren't really useful...you may as well buy an SUV at that point.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Worst of both worlds. Low ground clearance and durability of a car, gas mileage of a truck.

*Beats head against wall*

They are designed for work (see that 1.2 tonne payload, think you could do that with a standard falcon rear end?), so they should be just as durable as a clunky tonka truck pick-up.

Ground clearance isn't huge, but then I would wager that the vast majority of vehicles of this type don't need to ford huge rivers or clamber over rocky slopes.

The mileage is pretty much identical to the sedan Falcon.

Low tray, as mentioned, is a huge asset for your back too.

What's wrong with a RWD low slung Toyota pickup? They'd probably get the same gas mileage, or even better with a 4 cyl. And it would look like what it is, rather than some mishmash.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Worst of both worlds. Low ground clearance and durability of a car, gas mileage of a truck.

*Beats head against wall*

They are designed for work (see that 1.2 tonne payload, think you could do that with a standard falcon rear end?), so they should be just as durable as a clunky tonka truck pick-up.

Ground clearance isn't huge, but then I would wager that the vast majority of vehicles of this type don't need to ford huge rivers or clamber over rocky slopes.

The mileage is pretty much identical to the sedan Falcon.

Low tray, as mentioned, is a huge asset for your back too.

What's wrong with a RWD low slung Toyota pickup? They'd probably get the same gas mileage, or even better with a 4 cyl. And it would look like what it is, rather than some mishmash.

I'm not aware that Toyota or anyone (other than Holden and I think Proton (lol))) makes an equivalent vehicle, the hilux rides higher and you'd struggle to call it 'car-like'.

They're arguably aimed at slightly different markets, with the Ford being far more civilised and comfortable, as well as far safer. Payloads and towing capacity are similar, with an edge to the Ford afaik.

Looks seem pretty irrelevant int his debate, I'd argue the hilux RWD and equivalent small japanese utes look dog-ugly 😉

Is it just the tray back that you don't like? You can get them box-sided, but you lose the flat tray.

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: radioouman
Where's the rear seat? If a pickup doesn't have a rear seat, it is hardly useful (at least to consumers).

I know plenty of people that don't have a rear seat in their trucks. They use them as trucks, not as an alternative to a car or van so their egos aren't bruised from a wussy vehicle.

Anyways, to get that hauling and towing capacity on something with that low of clearance and the limits that place on acceptable suspension travel (you can't really drive down the road in a car with the suspension compressed 3 inches but on some trucks you wouldn't notice) it must have ludicrously hard springs.

Just like any commercial vehicle you can design the suspension to behave nicely under heavy loads (I suggest reading the article, which discusses this!). the vast majority of people don't haul heavy loads over terrain that requires feet of ground clearance 😉

For those who want rear seats, Holden sells a double-cab ute based on the Commodore (the Crewman).

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Worst of both worlds. Low ground clearance and durability of a car, gas mileage of a truck.

*Beats head against wall*

They are designed for work (see that 1.2 tonne payload, think you could do that with a standard falcon rear end?), so they should be just as durable as a clunky tonka truck pick-up.

Ground clearance isn't huge, but then I would wager that the vast majority of vehicles of this type don't need to ford huge rivers or clamber over rocky slopes.

The mileage is pretty much identical to the sedan Falcon.

Low tray, as mentioned, is a huge asset for your back too.

What's wrong with a RWD low slung Toyota pickup? They'd probably get the same gas mileage, or even better with a 4 cyl. And it would look like what it is, rather than some mishmash.

I'm not aware that Toyota or anyone (other than Holden and I think Proton (lol))) makes an equivalent vehicle, the hilux rides higher and you'd struggle to call it 'car-like'.

They're arguably aimed at slightly different markets, with the Ford being far more civilised and comfortable, as well as far safer. Payloads and towing capacity are similar, with an edge to the Ford afaik.

Looks seem pretty irrelevant int his debate, I'd argue the hilux RWD and equivalent small japanese utes look dog-ugly 😉

Is it just the tray back that you don't like? You can get them box-sided, but you lose the flat tray.

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: radioouman
Where's the rear seat? If a pickup doesn't have a rear seat, it is hardly useful (at least to consumers).

I know plenty of people that don't have a rear seat in their trucks. They use them as trucks, not as an alternative to a car or van so their egos aren't bruised from a wussy vehicle.

Anyways, to get that hauling and towing capacity on something with that low of clearance and the limits that place on acceptable suspension travel (you can't really drive down the road in a car with the suspension compressed 3 inches but on some trucks you wouldn't notice) it must have ludicrously hard springs.

Just like any commercial vehicle you can design the suspension to behave nicely under heavy loads (I suggest reading the article, which discusses this!). the vast majority of people don't haul heavy loads over terrain that requires feet of ground clearance 😉

For those who want rear seats, Holden sells a double-cab ute based on the Commodore (the Crewman).

I don't like that it's a truck AND a car.

Same reason I don't like crossover SUVs. Either get a damn truck or get a car. Don't embarass yourself by driving something that's taller than my lifted XJ and weighs twice as much, yet has the ground clearance of a Camry!

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Worst of both worlds. Low ground clearance and durability of a car, gas mileage of a truck.

*Beats head against wall*

They are designed for work (see that 1.2 tonne payload, think you could do that with a standard falcon rear end?), so they should be just as durable as a clunky tonka truck pick-up.

Ground clearance isn't huge, but then I would wager that the vast majority of vehicles of this type don't need to ford huge rivers or clamber over rocky slopes.

The mileage is pretty much identical to the sedan Falcon.

Low tray, as mentioned, is a huge asset for your back too.

What's wrong with a RWD low slung Toyota pickup? They'd probably get the same gas mileage, or even better with a 4 cyl. And it would look like what it is, rather than some mishmash.

I'm not aware that Toyota or anyone (other than Holden and I think Proton (lol))) makes an equivalent vehicle, the hilux rides higher and you'd struggle to call it 'car-like'.

They're arguably aimed at slightly different markets, with the Ford being far more civilised and comfortable, as well as far safer. Payloads and towing capacity are similar, with an edge to the Ford afaik.

Looks seem pretty irrelevant int his debate, I'd argue the hilux RWD and equivalent small japanese utes look dog-ugly 😉

Is it just the tray back that you don't like? You can get them box-sided, but you lose the flat tray.

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: radioouman
Where's the rear seat? If a pickup doesn't have a rear seat, it is hardly useful (at least to consumers).

I know plenty of people that don't have a rear seat in their trucks. They use them as trucks, not as an alternative to a car or van so their egos aren't bruised from a wussy vehicle.

Anyways, to get that hauling and towing capacity on something with that low of clearance and the limits that place on acceptable suspension travel (you can't really drive down the road in a car with the suspension compressed 3 inches but on some trucks you wouldn't notice) it must have ludicrously hard springs.

Just like any commercial vehicle you can design the suspension to behave nicely under heavy loads (I suggest reading the article, which discusses this!). the vast majority of people don't haul heavy loads over terrain that requires feet of ground clearance 😉

For those who want rear seats, Holden sells a double-cab ute based on the Commodore (the Crewman).

I don't like that it's a truck AND a car.

Same reason I don't like crossover SUVs. Either get a damn truck or get a car. Don't embarass yourself by driving something that's taller than my lifted XJ and weighs twice as much, yet has the ground clearance of a Camry!

I can't understand that sentiment applied here, because it's not a compromise or something silly like a crossover.

It's more functional than what you would call a pick-up truck unless you're going to need significant ground clearance, which I would wager 95%+ of people don't need.

It tows and carries as much, if not more, it's much quicker and more refined to drive, it's far safer, and it's easier to load.

What's not to like?

 

[Raduque]

I like the way the article never addressed how the vehicle handles with a full load. I bet my fullsize F150 handles, stops and accelerates better towing 5000lb with another 2000lb in the bed, than that ugly half-breed does with 1000lb in it's.... tray.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Raduque
I like the way the article never addressed how the vehicle handles with a full load. I bet my fullsize F150 handles, stops and accelerates better towing 5000lb with another 2000lb in the bed, than that ugly half-breed does with 1000lb in it's.... tray.

We're obviously reading different articles then, because on my reading, it quite explictly does 😉

Your conversion of kgs to lbs is equally lazy, it's rated for 2733lbs according to google (and yes, 5000lbs towing).

While it's clearly not designed as an F150 competitor, this is a vehicle with far better driving dynamics than both your F150 and more equivalent vehicles, a much lower centre of gravity, hefty discs all round, ABS, and plenty of power.

It probably won't accelerate as well, simply a function of having less power, a high-riding vehicle doesn't magically gain more power, and any differences in handling or braking are also completely unrelated to that, your F150 would handle better with a lower centre of gravity.

Here we quite sensibly require anything over 750kg to have a braked trailer in any event, so the weight of vehicle and assistance that provides to braking is much less important for our market.

Of course, it's quite a bit smaller than your F150, so you don't have as much load space, and clearly doesn't have the same ground clearance, but if you want those things then obviously this isn't for you.

This thing is designed to tow and carry up to the rated limits, and I see them used as such by tradesmen here on a daily basis. Everything I've heard and read suggests they are excellent at what they are designed to do, but clearly they're not designed for off-road work where you need massive ground clearance and 4WD.

The hate for something different is amazing, particularly when you don't sacrifice any functionality for this vehicle. If you need acres of ground clearance, or a longer/bigger tray, this is not for you. If you don't, it does everything a 'pickup' does, but better, there's nothing magical about a square vehicle with a higher centre of gravity that makes it better at carrying heavy loads or towing.

Compared to say a hilux/ranger/nissan/mazda 2wd equivalent (which are rather more comparable and competing vehicles than your F150), it tows and carries as much, if not more, it's much quicker and more refined to drive, it's far safer, and it's easier to load.

Those don't sound like reasons to hate it/deride it. Looks I can understand hating, the rest of it is just lazy and ill-informed.