(first posted 1/26/2018)
(The 26th of January is Australia Day so let’s celebrate with some Australiana.)
Both Ford North America and Ford Australia released controversially-styled replacement large sedans in the second half of the 1990s, the 1996 Taurus and the 1998 AU Falcon. Both saw sales suffer immediately. Both business units then introduced visually overhauled models in the new century. Only one did it right, and it was the far superior car.
Their approaches couldn’t be any more different. First, the similarities. The 2000 Taurus and the 2002 BA Falcon both received a handsome restyling, inside and out, but both used carryover roof stampings and doors and both the Taurus and Falcon wagon remained identical to their predecessors aft of the A-pillar.
That’s where the similarities end. While the Taurus continued down the path of decontenting, the Falcon added content. A lot of it.
Independent rear suspension had always been standard in the Taurus but that hadn’t been the case for the Falcon. In the previous-generation AU, it was standard fitment only on select models and a costly option on others. With the BA, IRS was made standard across the sedan range although the AU’s double-wishbone set-up was nixed in favor of a cheaper “Control Blade” multi-link set-up, similar to that in the Ford Focus. The AU’s double wishbone front suspension was retained, however.
The Falcon’s 4.0 I6 was completely overhauled, becoming the first double overhead cam Falcon engine and the first with variable cam timing. The new engine, christened Barra, produced a class-leading 244 hp at 5000 rpm and 280 ft-lbs at 3250 rpm. It was a distant relative of the original Falcon’s six but its effortless power and smooth delivery were resolutely modern, although fuel economy was mediocre with a combined rating of around 20 mpg. There was also a factory LPG variant, a popular option with cabbies because of the low price of LPG. It was detuned slightly, to 209 hp and 274 ft-lbs.
There were many other mechanical enhancements. The chassis claimed to be 88% stiffer. The brakes used larger diameter discs than before and all Falcons used discs on all four wheels (the Taurus had standard rear drum brakes). The four-speed automatic now also featured a manual shift mode, known as Sequential Sports Shift. Again, this was rolled out across the range, although a five-speed manual remained available in the base XT and the sports models.
XR6 Turbo photo courtesy of Jeremy
One change more visible to shoppers was the BA’s new interior. But for bits and pieces like the B-pillar trim, the Falcon’s interior was all-new and of markedly higher quality. This included soft-touch plastics across the bulk of the dashboard, as well as an elegant and modern center stack. Competition, like the newly revised Holden VY Commodore and Mitsubishi Magna, looked dated overnight.
The AU was competent but the BA’s extensive $AUD500 million overhaul brought the Falcon to a whole new level, the only blight being a 300 pound weight increase (to 3700-3900 pounds). But while the new interior and mechanical enhancements were laudable, the most exciting change was the arrival of a new performance model, the XR6 Turbo. Boasting a turbocharged version of the 4.0 I6, the XR6 Turbo produced 320 hp and 330 ft-lbs., and hit 60 mph in around 6 seconds. The turbo preceded Ford America’s EcoBoost engines by several years, although there was nothing terribly “eco” about the XR6 Turbo—with a combined 17 mpg, the turbo was only around 1 mpg more economical than the V8.
The BA’s V8 was also new but its arrival seemed to be lost in the buzz of the turbo. Derived from the North American Modular V8, the BA’s 5.4 mill produced 300 hp at 4750 rpm and 350 ft-lbs at 3250 rpm. An even more powerful version, called Boss, was standard in the XR8 and added an extra 50 hp and 20 ft-lbs. If you wanted even more performance, Ford Performance Vehicles had a line of vehicles with tuned turbo I6s and V8s.
The V8 became less relevant with the BA, the XR6 Turbo capturing the attention of shoppers. You could still, however, option the V8 in almost every Falcon sedan, wagon or ute, which underscored the dizzying number of options BA shoppers had. Case in point: the base XT (above). You could select three different suspension tunes – standard, the Fairmont Ghia’s sport-luxury tune, or a heavy-duty tune with higher ground clearance – as well as two different engines and two different transmissions. This kind of smorgasbord variety wouldn’t last, as Ford understandably pruned the range over the following years.
XR-branded models received a unique front fascia with more aggressive “quad” headlights, fog lights and a larger front air dam; out the back, the rear diffuser was different and all XR models had a rear spoiler. If you wanted the sporty look of the V8 XR8 or the XR6 Turbo but didn’t want to pay as much (at the dealer or at the pump), you could buy an XR6 with the sport-tuned suspension and the regular inline six. With the BA, the XR6 models became even more popular with both private buyers and as company cars. Lurid colors added to the appeal, with XR models available in hues like bright yellow, lime green, and purple.
The base XT remained the car of choice for taxi companies, while the family-focused Futura and the slightly more plush Fairmont seemed to recede into the background. The sedan range was topped by the Fairmont Ghia (above). Both the Fairmont and Fairmont Ghia used a slightly different center stack design, the latter adding a color screen and optional satellite navigation.
Ford saw the writing on the wall for the station wagon, pitching the Falcon wagon more to fleets. Accounting for only around 20% of sales, the wagons were workhorses and retained the AU wagon’s live rear axle and leaf spring rear suspension. Although Ford had offered sporty and luxurious Falcon wagons in the past, the BA wagon range was limited to the lower-end XT and Futura models. Sales continued to dwindle but there was just enough fleet demand for the Falcon wagon to continue it all the way up to 2010, even as the sedans and utes were replaced by the 2008 FG Falcon.
Less successful were the BA Fairlane and LTD. As before, these were long-wheelbase sedans on the Falcon platform with a more formal roofline. The BA Fairlane/LTD, compared to its garish, chrome-laden predecessor, was anodyne and looked little different to the Falcon—even the taillights were carried over.
Sales were down for the new Fairlane/LTD despite the introduction of a sporty V8 model called G220. These long-wheelbase models seemed to sell exclusively to staunch traditionalists, limousine companies and government fleets – typically only a few thousand units a year overall – and Holden was doing a better job soaking up that small pool of sales with its Statesman and Caprice. Ford’s LWB twins were axed in 2007.
Finally, there was the ute. Even though these were workhorses like the wagon – right down to the rear leaf springs – Ford offered sporty XR6, XR6 Turbo and XR8 utes. High-performance Commodore and Falcon utes were like the Mustangs and Camaros of the Australian market, albeit a lot more practical. As tradies continued to switch to crew-cab Japanese utes, the remaining sales for Aussie utes skewed heavily towards the performance variants.
The cab chassis variant was restricted to lower-end XL and XLS models although it was available with the V8.
Critics were mightily impressed with the BA Falcon. With a refined engine, direct steering, a compliant ride, and balanced handling, even the base XT was a pleasure to drive and, with the new interior, the lowliest model was even a nice place to sit. The BA received myriad plaudits from Aussie journalists and Wheels gave the BA its prestigious Car of the Year award for 2002. They even took an XR6 Turbo to Europe to be test-driven by journalists from publications like Auto Motor und Sport. These critics praised the big, heavy sedan for its superb chassis (“An E39 5-Series for 20 grand”, said one), although one dinged it for its slightly “American” steering.
Lest you think the sometimes-breathless praise of Aussie automotive journalists or my own purchase of a BA Falcon has clouded my judgment, I acknowledge the car had its flaws, chiefly inconsistent build quality. My 2004 XR6 was well screwed together, although its paintwork was mediocre and its air-conditioning was temperamental. The doors also didn’t close with the solid ‘thunk’ you might have heard in a Japanese sedan. But while there were the occasional build quality lapses, the BA proved to be as reliable and durable as Falcons past. Rode hard by taxi drivers and cops, BAs have been known to clock up to 500,000 miles. Many Falcon and Commodore buyers have used their cars for towing, and a BA sedan could tow up to 5000 pounds.
No matter how good the BA was, it couldn’t change the reality that the full-size sedan segment was in decline. The Falcon’s sales slide was momentarily reversed, the new model reaching a high of 73,220 sales in 2003 – its best tally since 1996 and a whopping 20k increase over 2001. Thereafter, sales fell and so too did those of the Commodore.
The Commodore had broken sales records in the 1990s, storming to 94k units in 1998. Sadly, even after the Falcon’s extensive redesign, the Commodore continued to outperform it in the market even though it couldn’t outperform it on the road. Its standard 3.8 V6 was a gruff performer with much less torque than the smooth Falcon I6 albeit marginally better fuel economy. Despite this, and its inferior interior and lack of a turbo model, the Commodore would outsell the Falcon every year until both ended production. The AU Falcon had torpedoed Falcon sales and by the time Ford had introduced the vastly improved BA, the full-size market had begun its inexorable decline.
Although the BA couldn’t outsell the Commodore, it spawned an offspring that Holden simply couldn’t match: the Territory crossover, available with all-wheel-drive and seven seats. The story of the Territory, Ford Australia’s last true success story, is one best told in more detail another day.
Over three years, Ford produced 281,197 BA Falcon sedans, utes and wagons. In late 2005, Ford introduced a mildly revised BF-series with some mechanical refinements such as a slick, new six-speed auto from ZF. Even though the basic platform was now several years old (with some components that pre-dated the 1998 AU model), so good was the overall package that the Ford continued to best the 2006 VE Commodore in some comparison tests, which must have disappointed Holden after they had spent a billion dollars on their new, export-oriented Commodore.
In its pursuit of better fuel economy, Detroit had invested heavily in front-wheel-drive platforms but here in Australia, we kept doing what we did best: large, rear-wheel-drive sedans. When GM wanted a rear-wheel-drive sport sedan for the Pontiac range, they contacted their Australian operations. Ford Australia wished it had been so lucky but Ford’s head honchos never granted their Antipodean arm the left-hand-drive export program it deserved. By the 2000s, it was probably too late anyway, with ever-diminishing returns in the segment both in North America and Australia.
The Falcon had long been on borrowed time, Ford Australia executives having to plead their case to global headquarters every few years to justify its continued survival. The real nail in the Falcon’s coffin was the S197 Mustang debacle. Ford had intended for the Falcon to share its platform with the 2005 Mustang, or at least the rear half of it. Eventually, Ford would have dropped its locally-manufactured inline sixes and switched to an imported Duratec V6, when it would have picked up the front half of the new global RWD platform.
Unfortunately, Ford’s engineers in both countries disagreed on the placement of the Control Blade rear suspension – three abreast seating was a higher priority for the Aussie engineers, naturally – and so the two vehicles diverged in the development process (and the Mustang ended up sticking with a live rear axle, anyway). Shortly thereafter, Ford fell into financial peril and any hopes of a global RWD platform were dashed. There would be one last overhaul of the Falcon platform – the fairly extensive 2008 FG redesign – but then that was it for rear-wheel-drive sedans with the Ford logo.
Not only was the BA Falcon far superior to the contemporary North American Taurus, it was superior to the Crown Victoria in every measure. It was just as rugged – as Aussie cabbies and cops will attest – and it was more refined, more powerful and more fuel-efficient. It had a larger range, including an honest-to-goodness station wagon and a hardy ute, and it was also better-equipped and better-finished.
Alas, the recipe that Ford Australia had perfected simply wasn’t what Aussie buyers wanted to be served. The Falcon was too big and thirsty for some, not versatile enough for others. Other buyers associated Falcons with their fathers or thought of them only as cars for taxi drivers and bogans.
It’s a shame. The BA Falcon was a damn good car.
Related Reading:
Automotive History: A Tribute To The Australian Ford Falcon
Curbside Classic: 1998-2002 Ford AU Falcon – Proven Mechanicals, Avant-Garde Styling
Large and in Charge: A Visual History of the Aussie Ford Fairlane and LTD
The Territory looks exactly like the Ford Freestyle sold in North America – despite being on a completely unrelated platform. (Yes, I know J Mays designed both.)
No, no MT! The Territory is fine-looking device, even now. (William’s photo here does it no justice at all, for shame Mr Stopford!). Have a look a the new and exxy Landrover Discovery, same design lingo in 2017. The Freestyle is comparatively bitsy and wrongly-scaled (looks more like a Wagon With Bits Added to me). The proportions here make all the difference, though I should add that I’m quite biased by the fact that the Territory was 95% of a BMW X5 to drive whilst being 50% of the price here.
Must confess, I did not know that both Freestyle and Territory were by J Mays.
I took some better photos of a Territory for that forthcoming article, Justy… 😉
The Freestyle is… odd. Too wagon-like, which is the kiss of death for crossover sales (see: Flex, first-gen SRX), but it hides its size remarkably well. I saw one parked next to a subcompact once and I was gob-smacked how big the Freestyle looked.
The Taurus X update freshened it up nicely. Can’t say the same for the Territory MCE which was a bit messy.
And that was a common refrain, that the Territory drove like a much more expensive crossover. Kudos to Ford’s chassis engineers.
I gather that the Freestyle took some inspiration from the Territory scale model that Ford Australia President Geoff Polites took to Dearborn in 2001 to get the program approved. I don’t know that J Mays styled the vehicle, being Ford global head of design and probably wasn’t working on an unapproved project in Australia.
First, happy Australia day to our upside-down friends.
Second, I will begin a long line of people who will lament another Aussie design that we never got in the States. I wish I knew how long I waited in vain for a Ford passenger car to incorporate the 5.4 V8 as an upgrade over the 4.6. I did not know that you guys were doing it so soon.
I have sometimes wondered if we faced a little bit of a chicken and egg problem with larger sedans in the US. The only people who bought them were old-timers. But the only ones we offered appealed to almost nobody but old timers. The Impala SS did well at the end of that platform’s fun but the Panther cars never got the power to go along with what the chassis could handle. Oh well.
Not just any 5.4 either, it wasn’t the spark plug puking 5.4 SOHC Triton found in jellybean F150s, it was the 5.4 DOHC like the Lincoln Navigator, but with better breathing heads and an intake manifold derived from the 2000 SVT Cobra R.
I agree with the chicken and egg conundrum. You can’t really say younger buyers shunned full size cars simply because of size, as the few offerings in the V8/ RWD mold were still straight out of the 1970s in their priorities. Even the Aero Crown Vic’s, which were about 6 years late if the styling wanted to be perceived as fresh, the dash and seats are about was as elderly as it gets, and the performance was weak. By the time the Panther platform(err frame) really got some meaningful upgrades in 2003 it was already doomed, still low power, a very conservative body, well out of step with contemporary styling themes(like the box ones in the 80s), and long pretentious model names that conjure up memories of padded tops and pillowtop velour.
Only the XR8 and FPV cars had the DOHC engine (which was assembled in-house), the others all had the 3-valve SOHC.
Interesting, I hadn’t known that. Was 3V available through the BA’s whole run? Austrailia must have been the first to use them, here in the US the first modular engine vehicles to get the 3V cylinder heads were the 2005 Mustangs and F-series trucks IIRC, before that the only variants were the 2V and 4V.
Yes, it was the 3-valve from the start, rated at 220 kW (295 hp) and 470 Nm (353 lb-ft). The 2005 BF upped that to 230 kW (308 hp) and 500 Nm (375 lb-ft), and just as importantly put the ZF 6HP26 gearbox behind it.
Neat, the 3V head is a bit notorious for their spark plug design, but they really woke up the SOHC 5.4, unshrouding the valves and actually letting it breathe without the bulk and complexity of the DOHC. Unfortunately we only got them in trucks.
I remember I was in high school reading through a muscle Mustangs and fast fords magazine, rather than studying, and flipping through the pages of the same old questionably modified foxbodies, I inexplicably stumbled upon a full column on the BA Falcon, and I’ve been envious of such cars ever since.
Yes, yes, I’m an irrelevant enthusiast, thus a nuisance to auto industry, therefore my opinion of what should have been is meaningless. I get it. But it seemed more logical to globalize this platform and engines than bother with the Volvo based D3 Five Hundred (which it and all other models flopped until the Explorer moved to it) and keep the Panther going for another decade. For Ford it would have been a better fit than GM’s Holdens, which were exclusively high end packages that they essentially had to create a niche for, Ford had a perfect spot in it in the lineup for the Falcon, and the styling inside and out was even contemporary with other NA models. Additionally, the Falcon seemed to be more well known to American enthusiasts. My recollection before the GTO was that if there was anyone who was aware of this Australian alternate car universe(utopia), it was the Falcon that was better known and more visually appealing(both the VZ Monaro and VE Commodore looked dated), ergo the Ford was one that was “demanded”. GM’s reputation was such complete trash in the 90s 00s that even hardcore enthusiasts lost faith in what they were being offered(which were LS1s in badly sealed Tupperware), and yet another import presumably like the Catara wasn’t exactly enticing, and the few loyalists who bought GTOs and G8s ended up surprised how good of cars they were.
How do the Falcon and Taurus compare in interior room and dimensions? That is/was a huge and critical factor for American buyers, who really like a lot of stretch-out room, and which was afforded to them in the FWD Taurus.
My guess, without having the facts, is that the Falcon might have been a bit tighter inside. And of course there’s the overarching reality that Ford was totally committed to FWD across their main lines, involving huge investments in suitable engines and transmissions, crappy as they were (3.8, AOXD).
The demands in the US market, which was of course very competitive, almost demanded FWD cars due to their space efficiency, fuel efficiency, lighter weight and lower production cost. I think there’s probably several good reason Ford chose not to build the Falcon here.
Also, here in the midwest where winter traction is an issue, two generations of (non-enthusiast) people have had it pounded into their thick skulls that FWD gives you better traction in slick weather and is therefore a superior design. Even if interior room were comparable, it would have taken a huge re-education campaign to convince buyers that this was the way to go, while Chevy’s ad agencies produced commercial after commercial about Fords getting stuck in bad weather. Yes, BMW and Mercedes may be RWD but this demographic never cross-shopped them. They cross-shopped Camrys and Accords and Impalas. This may not have been a deal killer but it would have been a stiff headwind at the very least.
Without having the stats – alright, without even looking for them – I can comment that the Falcon would quite easily swallow four Niedemeyer-length occupiers, and comfortably at that. However, very relevantly, it couldn’t seat the fabled fifth person comfortably at all, unless he lacked legs. The large drive shaft hump, you see, pressings in the floorpan dating well prior to the BA’s birth. Even putting aside the point Monsieur Cavanaugh-at-Law rightly makes, FWD is just better at that. The BA’s a lovely car, a great deal nicer to drive (and in my opinion, to behold) than the Taurus, but I wouldn’t have built it in the US either.
I typed up all the dimensions but unfortunately the reply disappeared, and on the phone it is too annoying to repeat.
However the Falcon has slightly less front headroom and more rear, more front legroom but slightly less rear and more combined. Only half an inch or so difference for those dimensions, but in width the Falcon has about 2 inches on the Taurus. Also 0.8 cu ft more trunk space.
Externally the Falcon is more than 3″ shorter, has a 3″ longer wheelbase, is 10mm wider and has an inch less height.
Wow. That stacks up surprisingly well, John. I will attest that centre hump really chewed into rear-seat room but still, these cars weren’t ubiquitous taxi cabs for nothing.
The lack of AWD would’ve stifled sales but then again, there was the Territory. With a dedicated export program, Ford might have found the bucks to create an AWD Falcon. Then again, the Crown Vic never offered AWD. I would imagine if Ford had exported the BA Falcon to North America, it would have been positioned above the Taurus anyway. But this is just pure fantasy.
I really like the bright blue one with the Acura Integra headlight thing going on… Following your link Will, I see your purple one had that look as well.
Yeah, I agree… this car would’ve been a better choice than Ford’s Five Hundred was here in the states.
It’s so weird (just because I’m American) to see names like Falcon, Futura, LTD, Fairmont, and Ghia, used in the same sentence as satellite navigation…. Decades and decades apart around here. ;o)
It’s funny, the anachro-cognitive dissonance for me isn’t Falcon + sat nav, it’s Falcon + turbo, though of course the US had the Olds and Corvair turbos in the Falcon era. But other than the brief life of the Sprint, the US Falcon was never sporty, and in Australia it was everything from family sedan to muscle car to truck to wagon, and for many decades. Truly amazing to me as an American, thanks for the history William!!
Rereading this fine piece, I came here to comment on all the name dropping of those classic American names for Fords.
I see now that I apparently did just that 6 years ago. 🤣
But one name is obviously missing: Ranchero! Aussies are so fond of their “utes”. I am really surprised that the Ranchero name was not used here, since all the other classic Ford names were for this “Falcon” platform.
At a a guess, I’d say it’s because we don’t call our big livestock farms ranches, so that name would elicit a big “Huh?”, as would the -o ending.
Yeah, that makes sense Peter, although as a counter argument, that didn’t stop the Japanese from using English names for some of their JDM only cars… I cite the Crown as an example.
Although I think we are getting the next Crown here in the states from Toyota finally. I guess they’ve decided to drop the Avalon name.
When I took a trip to Sydney, we rented a car for a couple of days. At the rental counter they tried to put us in a Toyota Camry. I chatted the nice lady up, and told her that I didn’t fly half way around the world to drive in something I could drive in the states. I wanted to drive something that was uniquely Aussie… either a Falcon or a Commodore (or equivalent). She seemed to love that I had a keen interest in cars of her country, and she located me a nice BF Falcon XR6.
That car rode really well, had great power, and looked great. It was a complete 180 from the 500/Taurus that we had at the time. I loved driving that thing, and wish that we had that come to the US. Even though I didn’t drive the V8, I know that it woudl have been great to feel that Mod motor power of the V8.
I admire the Five Hundred for its space efficiency but that was just too little engine for too big a car. It did look elegant, though, if very VW-derivative.
Glad you got to swap out the Camry. I hate the rental car lottery sometimes, but then sometimes you luck out… like when i reserved a VF Commodore SV6 and they upgraded me to a Caprice V8!
I like watching BTCC because I like smaller 4 cylinder cars. The Australian Supercar series is pretty fantastic as well. Wish NASCAR or IMSA (or what ever they call it now) was more like them.
Beatiful-looking sedans; the wagon models however, are a huge letdown with that ungainly squared off back end.
Thanks, William!
As this article pointed out, it is/was “interesting” how the same company took entirely different paths to getting the sales trajectories of 2 cars so important in their respective markets, back on course.
The BA Falcon added content/features while the Taurus….? The Taurus mostly had it’s controversial styling “toned down”.
I guess what really blows my mind though is that Ford in Australia offered so many variations of the Falcon in such a small market while Ford in the U. S. severely restricted the Taurus in a much bigger market.
Thanks to the Navy, I got to visit many different countries. However, my dream for more than 25 years has been to visit Australia for a few weeks….months?
There is an intangible “pride of ownership” measure that counts for something. When you are at the gas station, and everyone is with their vehicles, you do not want to be the one that has the stupid stodgy car. The Ford Five Hundred and related Taurus rehash fell slightly into that category. The Falcon, had they sold it over here in the U.S., would likely not have. As Maxwell Smart used to say, “missed it by that much”.
Very true. The Five Hundred was elegant but conservative, and there was nothing terribly aspirational about it. It looked like a bloated Passat and didn’t have any sporty models to generate showroom traffic.
I do wonder what a SHO version of the ’08-09 Taurus would’ve been like, though. Perversely appealing, perhaps, in a sleeper kind of way.
And you’re right about the Falcon. The XR6 Turbo and XR8 were highly regarded as performance sedans and they probably helped drive sales of the less powerful XR6, to the point where it seemed the XR6 outnumbered all the other trim levels.
I was behind this FG X XR8 on Australia Day, which had a rather fitting number plate….
Just a minor point, but you could get the later AUs (definitely Series III, maybe Series II?) with a VCT engine—just on the XR6 and Fairmont Ghia. I had a non-VCT AU III Fairmont Ghia for a few months and then a BA Fairmont for over six years—both great cars, but the BA was hugely more fun to drive and had a much nicer interior, even without the premium stereo, leather and sunroof that were in my Fairmont Ghia.
Oh yes, that sounds familiar… wasn’t the VCT-equipped XR6 called Sprint?
No, the Sprint was a limited edition. From launch there were two versions of the XR6, one with the standard XR6 engine (164 kW) and live axle, and the other with the VCT engine (172 kW) and IRS, and a $5k higher price tag.
Good piece, Mr Stopford. The BA is for sure one of the very best.
We live in an oddball remote place, nearly the size of the US but with only about 7% of the US population – yet an outsized and unlikely GDP 7% the size America’s. Of course, the latter is part of how oddities such as the BA even existed.
Outside here in its time, these cars were, as XR7Matt correctly implies above, irrelevant and for enthusiasts.
Since it’s Australia Day (or near enough), it has to be said that it’s weird that Ford US couldn’t make a car to match it’s odd little o/s subsidiary for all-round family car ability.
But since I don’t much like flags or nationalism, I’ll point out that it’s no more than part of the tale of a branch of of a US multinational here. No disrespect, William.
At the time these (with the Commodore) were still by far the biggest selling vehicles, and the sales recovery of the BA that William noted showed they still had legs. Unfortunately there were a few niggling quality issues and worse Ford and the dealer network didn’t cover themselves in glory in addressing things.
The market had given Ford another chance after the AU, but I feel that those issues saw the Falcon’s reputation spoiler and it never recovered.
Being heavier and thirstier in a time when fuel prices were rising significantly (up 50% from 2002-2006) definitely didn’t help. It is worth mentioning that the highway milage was 29 mpg. The BF model was significantly better here, but not enough to overcome the rate fuel was going up.
Unfortunately the viscous circle of small market allowing a small development budget showed. They made some mistakes and poor choices, but overall Ford Australia did a remarkable job with what they had to work with.
I meant, John, that outside Australia, they weren’t relevant to the world at large, except for an economically irrelevant enthusiast subset. The Falcon was a particularly hopeless oddity in that sense, with nothing but the rear suspension in common with any other Ford product. Blimey, even the transmission was made in Albury.
I reckon the market was very forgiving of Ford. The AU, hated for it’s looks (though personally I like them), was also nowhere near as good to drive as the VT, even with the Commodore’s, er, vocally untrained engine. (Rough as ratshit also springs to mind, though, irritatingly, it was highly effective and tough, but I’m digressing). Of course, the fact that the BA was such a turnaround couldn’t hurt. The skinny-budgeted re-engineering from AU to the BA was indeed remarkable, as it became a significantly superior car to the Commode.
I still maintain that fleet/buy-Aus factors acted as a huge internal tariff/incentive in the sales of these cars, but I also probably overstate it in relation to another factor: price. The big private sales of these as two year olds show that folk actually DID like the cars themselves, but that as newbies, they were always just too expensive. I’ve forgotten who pointed this out in one of the recent threads.
One thing’s for sure. As the two competitors age, the Falc wears it’s years much better, both in looks and feel. Given that about $6K is plenty for a really good one, it’s a helluva buy now.
Ford sensibly took steps to generate some more commonality with other Fords but then that whole S197 disagreement happened. And that was around the same time as Holden engineers determined the Cadillac Sigma platform was too expensive and went their own way with Zeta. At least GM had the foresight to, you know, actually use the Zeta platform outside of Australia. Even if the huge raft of models planned for it never came to fruition (and even an Aussie crossover, the Nullabor, was left on the cutting room floor).
It’s funny: the VT Commodore, rough-as-guts engine aside, looked pretty damn good for the time. The AU was chintzy and weird in comparison (although its exterior styling was somewhat ahead of its time and has aged well, I agree). But then the BA and VY came out at the same time and the VY just looked lazy: same V6 and a half-assed interior upgrade, with the same shiny plastic, curvy door trims despite a new, upright dash design.
I was often surprised when I read the MSRPs of base model Commodores and Falcons. The BA XT may have been the nicest base model Aussie ever, you couldn’t hide the fact that it was the taxi cab of choice throughout the country. The FG XT, in my opinion, actually took a step backwards and looked pretty low-rent (all the FG models did except for the G6E – most of the blame can be placed on lousy new seat trim).
It wasn’t until the VF Commodore Evoke that the Commodore again (?) looked good in base trim. But then, it still had that high MSRP and a V6 when people were concerned about fuel, if they were even buying a full-size sedan at all…
The saga of the Falcon is interesting, and something I intend to write more about – basically with each generation Ford Aus fought to keep the Falcon as it was instead of adopt an overseas model. When they announced that the global V6 was not going to go in the car after all (2010-ish) I thought that was the nail in the coffin. It will be interesting what FCA does when it comes time to renew the Charger etc LX cars.
Fundamentally it is difficult to base a cheap/mainstream car and a luxury car off the same platform; a reason why Ford Aus had to steer clear of the DEW98 that was under the Lincoln LS and Jaguar S-Type. The Mustang had the same issue.
I definitely think that the FG in base form looked very uninspired. They had gone from having an unpopular look for the base model AU, to making all versions of the BA look similar (excluding the XRs of course) with a little bit of extra bling for the higher trim levels.
Then they seemed to forget the volumes they were dealing with, and the XT had to have been designed after the good looking, original-concept G6 version too. The VE was bland in base trim, but at least it didn’t look cheap.
I have pictured my car on here a few times, so here is a different one, showing the column shift with flip up centre arm rest allowing three abreast seating.
I wouldn’t get this combination again though, because you missed out on an adjustable steering column and raising and lowering of the seats.
15 years old and everything still works.
Engine
Never knew the BA could be had with a column shift, jonco. Apologies I can’t recall your earlier photo, is it a ute?
Yes justy, base model XL, when I found it with its vinyl flooring and column shift, it reminded me of my old Valiants I used to drive, then I found out what I missed out on.
No matter, she’s been a good old girl, the opposite of what Jimmy Kwaka (below) experienced.
I beg to differ William. We bought a spanking new BA in 2002, ironically in the exact colour as your featured car. It was nothing but trouble. These troubles included a leaking heater core when the car was 6 weeks old, which meant us having to abandon it in the middle of Brisbane and deal with an absolutely hopeless factory care plan. It included dreadful brake woes, starting with an incorrectly factory installed parking brake assembly, and finishing with a total loss of rear brakes and a partial loss of front brakes as my wife was exiting a freeway. The car was 3 months old when these problems arose. Did i mention the passenger door that flew open as we rounded a bend when it was 2 days old? Faulty locks. Yeah, it had a great engine and transmission. The rest of the car was a shitbox. I will never ever again by a Ford of any discription. Ever. Did I mention the bonnet, or hood latch breaking the day we offloaded it?
And this is where the Japanese really smacked the Aussies: inconsistent quality control, which I touched on in the article.
Sorry to hear how poorly yours was built. Not that it’s an excuse, but I’m not surprised to hear a first-year model experiencing issues like that. It’s like American car buyers often say, “Don’t buy the first year of a new model.” But nobody says that about the Japanese, and therein lies the rub.
The worst issue I had with my BA was an AC system that stopped working. To fix, they would have had to rip out the entire dash even though it was a simple fix of a few small parts. I shivered almost a whole winter – ok, so Brisbane doesn’t get that cold, but I do recall breathing condensation in my car! – and then the issue just kind of fixed itself. Well, the air-con did (in addition to noise, cold air now came out of the vents again!) but the heater remained temperamental. By then, though, winter was over.
Also had a mate from work tell me a BA he used to drive (company fleet car, from memory) had significant brake issues. That is an inexcusable failing.
…but a good engine and transmission!
Not only was the car loaded with issues, the dealer service was quite frankly appalling. When the heater core failed, a major Brisbane dealer had no idea how to pull the dashboard out to replace it. We lived in Sydney at the time, so we were stranded. It fell to me to tell them the old trick of running the heater hose straight from the outlet back into the inlet, thus bypassing the core. This got us back to Sydney, albeit in mid winter with a rather cold trip home. This, as well as the Sydney dealer we purchased the car from who had a so called mechanic replace a rear brake hose that ended up so badly twisted that it failed, was the end for us. We traded it at a significant loss and ended up with a wide body 4 cylinder Camry, second hand, which proceeded to run and run and keep running and then it ran some more, with no more than some fuel and tyres thrown at it. Now, we do Japanese exclusively. A shame, because we tried to do the right thing and buy Aussie, but we were hurned so badly that we were soured for life.
“The Falcon, had they sold it over here in the U.S….”
Read the Australian owners stories above, they weren’t all “muscle cars” with “pride of ownership”. Easy to get excited for what one cant buy, but reality is different.
“we were burned so badly that we were soured for life”
“an inexcusable failing.”
They shouldn’t be Muscle cars, that was exactly part of the problem with GM’s approach to their importation of Holden’s – rather than making a Firebird replacement the GTO only occupied the WS6 Trans Am slot, rather than a Bonniville or Grand Prix replacement the G8 only replaced the SSEI or GTP packages, rather than an Impala replacement the SS was sold redundantly with another(fresher styled) one wearing the badge as a high performance only variant. – they only sold to the hardcore buyers who bought those previous low volume packages in the first place.
it isn’t irrational enthusiast fanboism to perhaps suggest that the long flailing full size lines might be more desirable to buyers if they offered more than just extra space efficiency from the segment below, and just simply match it and offer something else enticing, which independent RWD handling, and it’s inherently better proportions for styling, offers. That doesn’t mean they have to have the biggest most inefficient V8 installed, a I6 Falcon was a better driving car than the 3.0 Five Hundred and the ancient Crown Vic. This is no different than the completely uncontested suggestion that the Vega should have been based on a pre-existing and much better designed Opel instead.
Alarmingly generic styling. Design that could represent virtually any car manufacturer.
Mmm, true, sort of, but just what the market needed after the overstyled/ugly AU. A return to mainstream aesthetics was just what the customers wanted.
Understood.
Like you, I always initially critique a design independent of its brand, history, market, etc. Consider it fully, on its own design merits, and originality.
Virtually all cars have *some* design element(s), that helps define their looks. And/or gives them independent character. And uniqueness.
I’ve looked at this design from all angles, and don’t see a single styling element, I’d say uniquely defines this car! Either an individual styling detail, or collectively overall. Closest, would be the generic-looking noses Ford used widely, at the time.
Though, I fully appreciate your rationale for its popularity in its market.
Alarmingly generic, or a clean, classy antithesis to modern overwrought styling?
These things are closing in on being old enough to import into the US. I wonder if there are enough high-power survivors to be worth the effort, or did they all fall into the Australian equivalent of mulletdom?
Scrolling down, where do the Fords end and the Holdens begin? There’s nothing wrong with exporting cars to the U.S., but for every Ford Capri or Fiesta, you get a slew of Opel Omega/Cateras or Holden Commodore/Chevy SS/Pontiac G8s.