Will Territory become Fords No1 local?

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I thought the 2.7 had an alloy block....that's why it's only 440 lbs and one of the lightest V6 diesels readily available

Nah John it's CGI, alloy heads though.

But still, if it was made here, it could be used in more vehicles as availability and cost would be less of an issue...

[turbodewd]

This thread reminds me that people shouldnt be so down on the Falcon. Its unreasonable to expect a large car to have a massive market share with a market that is sooo segmented with so much competition and so many makes.

The Territory has taken some falcon sales which is good because if there was no Terri the Kluger would rule the roost by miles.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Its CGI, compacted graphite iron, stronger than cast iron yet lighter, and cheaper than alloy.

One of the reasons why the 2.7 V6 is only 1kg heavier than I6. Diesels are usually way heavier than petrol engines.

Thank's I forgot about CGI, very hard stuff to machine, I thought Foundry was set up for it in the early days..

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by turbodewd

The Territory has taken some falcon sales which is good because if there was no Terri the Kluger would rule the roost by miles.

Good point an maybe the philosophy Ford should adopt to challenge Toyota on all levels.
Maybe introduce 1.6 EB mondeo and go after Camry since diesel Mondeo is unobtanium...

[TMC]

The Turbo Territory's looked almost identical to the NA equivalents. When Ford produced these they didn't differentiate them well from the standard model. So those who would have bought a performance version also wanted the looks to go with it, and basically the Turbo Territory look was way too conservative. Yes, they had a bonnet scoop, but then so does an intercooled turbo 4WD Toyota.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

You can't compare someone who pays 60k for a Territory against someone who pays over 140k for a BMW, as the cheapest V8 X5 cost over that, the guy who pays 60k is less likely to not be bothered by fuel costs.

Remember that the Territory was based on the X5 at half the price. What you miss in a Territory over an X5 is build quality and refinement. But the basic concept is there with the X5.

[jpd80]

Or how about a simple RWD Turbo Territory with around $48,000 with 12.5 l/100 km, similar to SS Commodore

[OZQUAD44]

I'd like to see a hi lift, more off road focused beast. Something with diff locks similar in concept to the RTV. But that isn't going to happen. Too much engineering involved there. Nice to dream though

A Titainum LTD would be interesting, and I really think a RWD turbo Tessa would kick a lot of goals for me and the misses. I wouldn't even look at the oiler if you could still buy a turbo tessa, but you know what. the Territory range is pretty good IMO. I'm currently looking at a TS RWD for the misses. I would like the oiler, but the latest tune of the I6 mated to the 6 speed auto would be OK too.

I'm with the comments about the Ranger. That thing is going to sell like hot cakes once people understand what they are all about. I just which I could talk the misses into one of those, but that ain't happening. Not enough seats.

Conclusion for me: RWD (petrol) turbo Tessa. The only option that would make both my wife and I happy. All the otters are a slight compromise one way or the other.

As far as the Tezza out selling the falcon. Its a very real possibility.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by OZQUAD44

I'd like to see a hi lift, more off road focused beast. Something with diff locks similar in concept to the RTV. But that isn't going to happen. Too much engineering involved there. Nice to dream though

Don't forget that the Everest (T6 Ranger SUV) will be with us soon and that
will open up another demographic to Ford sales that hasn't been servicied..

A Titainum LTD would be interesting, and I really think a RWD turbo Tessa would kick a lot of goals for me and the misses. I wouldn't even look at the oiler if you could still buy a turbo tessa, but you know what. the Territory range is pretty good IMO. I'm currently looking at a TS RWD for the misses. I would like the oiler, but the latest tune of the I6 mated to the 6 speed auto would be OK too.

I'm with the comments about the Ranger. That thing is going to sell like hot cakes once people understand what they are all about. I just which I could talk the misses into one of those, but that ain't happening. Not enough seats.

Conclusion for me: RWD (petrol) turbo Tessa. The only option that would make both my wife and I happy. All the otters are a slight compromise one way or the other.

Yeah, 10.6 l/100 km compared to 9.9 l/100 km for the Falcon means the RWD Territory is very close.
Is the RWD I-6 Territory still on special for $39,990 drive away?

As far as the Tezza out selling the falcon. Its a very real possibility.

You bet because there's a lot more households that now see Territory in a different light

[Luke Plaizier]

The wife has a dual fuel aftermarket LPi SX Territory Ghia now. So I'd seriously consider another LPG Territory.

However, Ford have locked me out as a future I6 Territory buyer with aftermarket aspirations because it is 2WD only. That makes the diesel the only option, and diesel-LPG isn't so much a 'dual' fuel as a 'combined' fuel.

Ford Aus missed out on assembling the Ranger locally. Could they conceivably get access to building the Everest here? It would have the necessary profit margin and sales volume to be worthwhile....


Lukeyson

[TMC]

To be honest, if I was after a real 4WD I'd buy a Toyota or a Nissan. The Ranger doesn't interest me.

But if I had the money, a Turbo LPi AWD Territory would be my pick of the SUV's. Or even a SC 5.0 V8 luxury edition (which I would then fit LPi too)

What would be nice for the upper end variants is some sort of self levelling suspension air bag kit on all 4 corners so you could pump it up 25-50mm when experiencing rough terrain. It would just extend the Territory's range into areas the Kluger won't go offroad for example, and give it just that bit more offroad credibility that it currently doesn't have due to the clearance issue. Once back on the tarmac the thing can be let down again and then be able to stick to the road like glue.

When you look at other cars in the SUV line like the Kluger (which the Territory has been up against from the start), they do have "sports" models. OK. "sports" can mean many things to many people, and the Kluger still barely pushes more than 200kW and it's way up past 6000rpm with peak torque up near the mid 4000 rpm mark in the sports models, but they actually do have something aimed at the clients who wants a little more. It's not all about sipping fuel and being quiet in the SUV market.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Or how about a simple RWD Turbo Territory with around $48,000 with 12.5 l/100 km, similar to SS Commodore

That would sell. Not all SUV buyers have 2.4 children either. Young couples who love a bit of performance but need the carrying capacity may find that attractive. That's basically an XR Territory.

In my case, we own an AWD SY but we have no children. The Territory is great for open road touring and taking passengers sightseeing which we do quite a bit of. The above car could be marketed at those in a similar situation. Open road touring is much more enjoyable in a Territory than a Falcon due to the room. You end up at your destination refreshed and without leg cramps.

In regards to just having a 2WD Turbo version (for economy reasons?) I don't think it's the AWD system that made the Turbo version drink a bit more, although it would have made some difference. I think it's the lack of the broadband intake manifold on the turbo. The broadband intake manifold allowed for more low down torque on the NA engine and maybe with that missing the Turbo motor needed to rely on boost for it's low down torque which then requires a bit more fuel for all the air being forced down it's throat. I imagine the broadband manifold couldn't handle the boost of a Turbo and that's why it was deleted? Anyone know?

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by Luke Plaizier

Ford Aus missed out on assembling the Ranger locally. Could they conceivably get access to building the Everest here? It would have the necessary profit margin and sales volume to be worthwhile....

They wouldnt be able to build Ranger/Everest alongside Falcon/Territory, so IMO they'd be ****ing money against the wall configuring the plant to do so.

[Racecraft]

in that Ford are selling it as the 'wagon'

Advertise the 'boot' space, throw in LPi with underbody mounted tanks, a cargo barrier, an external full size spare wheel carrier and marketed as a base model fleet special might bring back a few fleet customers.

[JG34JA]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I think adding a few extra models to the range would be a good step, I don't think they'd do an XR version but how about a Territory Sport. Mesh grilles like XR, maybe some small side skirts and a front bumper lip, lower firmer suspension and 19's as standard. XR style seats and instrument cluster. I6 or 3 litre diesel as an option, to keep costs down use the 180kw 500nm Land Rover version, it would go pretty well. Either RWD petrol or RWD/AWD for diesel. Might be expensive to engineer the 3 litre but I don't think the 2.7 cuts the mustard in a sports application. Maybe try to position it between TS and Titanium.

And maybe go above Titanium with a Titanium LTD, they looked at doing an LTD version back in 2004, to tap into the growing luxury SUV market. Fit some more chrome, maybe make the chrome grille bars solid chrome like Explorer, fit some quality Howe leather like they used to fit to LTD, maybe splash some more of it around the cabin to the handbrake lever, door trims etc, a branded upgraded audio, well above premium sound, powered tailgate and some other gadgets.

Thoughts?

Good idea, when we bought our Territory in 2007 we went for the closest thing to a sports pack - the SR, with blackout 17's, hybrid XR sports seats, the first black trim available. Added 7 seats and AWD to the order, then specced it up to the equivalent TS with all the curtain airbags, 6 stacker etc. So there was profit for Ford! Oh, and top customer service to Ford for not only building a vehicle that is solid as a rock at 150,000km/5yrs with virtually no niggles and the front suspension upgraded on warranty, but having the courtesy to ring after all that time and ask the owner about good and bad points of the car for improvement.

We wanted a 'younger' feeling Territory as we were younger than the demographic buying these cars, and the SR fit the bill.

As far as the build spread, nothing wrong with buiding more of a model which sells for more profit to a greater number of private buyers and is in demand!

And the AWD with the inline 6 and ZF is a great combination, it's a pity you cannot spec an AWD petrol any more (makes mine 'exclusive', lol!)

Lastly, an LPi Terry wagon would be great and would also be a pretty good fill for the vacant load-hauler Falcon Wagon niche. It certainly has more room than a Sportwagon or Mondeo wagon.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by TMC

That would sell. Not all SUV buyers have 2.4 children either. Young couples who love a bit of performance but need the carrying capacity may find that attractive. That's basically an XR Territory.

In my case, we own an AWD SY but we have no children. The Territory is great for open road touring and taking passengers sightseeing which we do quite a bit of. The above car could be marketed at those in a similar situation. Open road touring is much more enjoyable in a Territory than a Falcon due to the room. You end up at your destination refreshed and without leg cramps.

In regards to just having a 2WD Turbo version (for economy reasons?) I don't think it's the AWD system that made the Turbo version drink a bit more, although it would have made some difference. I think it's the lack of the broadband intake manifold on the turbo. The broadband intake manifold allowed for more low down torque on the NA engine and maybe with that missing the Turbo motor needed to rely on boost for it's low down torque which then requires a bit more fuel for all the air being forced down it's throat. I imagine the broadband manifold couldn't handle the boost of a Turbo and that's why it was deleted? Anyone know?

The broadband manifold was deleted for turbo because it was unneccesary. It was designed to boost torque below 2500 in NA versions, where the turbo is making it in spades. Peak torque in the turbo versions was below that, so it achieved nothing.

[glenn454]

statistically the turbo beats the n/a
practically they're driven harder because they can and they use more gas.
driven in the same manner[hard to do given the immensity of the male ego ] they should use less.
but man wasn't given a brain to use were we?
we think with something else don't we?

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Or how about a simple RWD Turbo Territory with around $48,000 with 12.5 l/100 km, similar to SS Commodore

The Territory would still be faster in a straightline too!

Used to love that Territory advert where it went around literally eating sportscars

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Don't forget that the Everest (T6 Ranger SUV) will be with us soon and that will open up another demographic to Ford sales that hasn't been servicied..

Yeah, 10.6 l/100 km compared to 9.9 l/100 km for the Falcon means the RWD Territory is very close. Is the RWD I-6 Territory still on special for $39,990 drive away?

You bet because there's a lot more households that now see Territory in a different light.

Yeah i've told a number of people at work about the Territory and it's efficiency whenever the purchase of a new family vehicle came up. Most were dismissive at first saying they 'know they are a really nice vehicle but were too thirsty.'

You can imagine the suprise when informed of the successive economy improvements to SY/SY2 models culminating in the current SZ with the petrol six at a very respectable 10.6L/100km and 8.x/100km for the new diesel.

Those economy figures are as good as or better than many smaller SUV / medium cars from just a few years ago.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by turbodewd

This thread reminds me that people shouldnt be so down on the Falcon. Its unreasonable to expect a large car to have a massive market share with a market that is sooo segmented with so much competition and so many makes.

The Territory has taken some falcon sales which is good because if there was no Terri the Kluger would rule the roost by miles.

Falcon sales aren't where we or Ford want them. But, you are spot on. Ford are doing there best to grow across as many segments as possible and not rely solely on Falcon for sales glory.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by phillyc

The Territory would still be faster in a straightline too!

Used to love that Territory advert where it went around literally eating sportscars

They should be pushing I-6 Territory way more, the I-6 stock has been deliberately
restricted in order to push Diesel but now more are becoming available.

[whynot]

I agree with the concept that Ford should be nurturing the Territory and not let it wither on the vine as they did after the SY. The question is what low cost updates will get ROI and keep the vehicle “fresh” between now and 2016?

My view is to forget the niche markets of turbos or V8. Before their demise, the turbos were almost impossible to shift. It will cost too much in the current climate to fit a V8 and handling will take a backward step.

The LPG would have some appeal. But I think there is market misalignment between who would best benefit from LPG and their willingness to buy LPG. If the Falcon LPG gets good sales, it may be a goer.

I like the idea of an XR at some point. It shouldn’t be too hard or expensive to wack on some 19” rims, stiffen and lower the suspension an inch, change the grill somewhat to look badder, add a subtle body kit, and lick on some XR stickers.

I also think that Ford should get into the habit of a two year cycle of low cost cosmetic changes. Change the grill somewhat. Play with the shape of the mirrors and rear lights. Change the circular vents to square and back again. Re-chip the engine to eke out another few kilowatts each upgrade. Just give something to the loyal punters who come back at the end of their two year lease something to point to that they have a new car.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by whynot

I agree with the concept that Ford should be nurturing the Territory and not let it wither on the vine as they did after the SY. The question is what low cost updates will get ROI and keep the vehicle “fresh” between now and 2016?

Park assist, Voice control, dual zone climate ... those sorts of things

My view is to forget the niche markets of turbos or V8. Before their demise, the turbos were almost impossible to shift. It will cost too much in the current climate to fit a V8 and handling will take a backward step.

Previous Territory Turbo only came as AWD which increased purchase price by around $5,000 and ruined fuel economy.
A RWD Territory Turbo would be lighter and give economy around the same as SS Commodore - 12.5 l/100 km
and IMO, at around $48,000-$50,000 would attract as many buyers as Falcon XR6 turbo...

The LPG would have some appeal. But I think there is market misalignment between who would best benefit from LPG and their willingness to buy LPG. If the Falcon LPG gets good sales, it may be a goer.

IMO, Ecoboost offers Falcon (and Territory) a 60 Kg weight reduction and change of perception needed to attract more buyers.

I like the idea of an XR at some point. It shouldn’t be too hard or expensive to wack on some 19” rims, stiffen and lower the suspension an inch, change the grill somewhat to look badder, add a subtle body kit, and lick on some XR stickers.

Hmm, Territory XR6 and maybe XR6 Turbo....could we transfer more Falcon buyers via fleet and novated leases...

I also think that Ford should get into the habit of a two year cycle of low cost cosmetic changes. Change the grill somewhat. Play with the shape of the mirrors and rear lights. Change the circular vents to square and back again. Re-chip the engine to eke out another few kilowatts each upgrade. Just give something to the loyal punters who come back at the end of their two year lease something to point to that they have a new car.

Welcome to the 2014 Falcon and Territory Upgrades.....

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Park assist, Voice control, dual zone climate ... those sorts of things


Previous Territory Turbo only came as AWD which increased purchase price by around $5,000 and ruined fuel economy.
A RWD Territory Turbo would be lighter and give economy around the same as SS Commodore - 12.5 l/100 km
and IMO, at around $48,000-$50,000 would attract as many buyers as Falcon XR6 turbo...


IMO, Ecoboost offers Falcon (and Territory) a 60 Kg weight reduction and change of perception needed to attract more buyers.

Hmm, Territory XR6 and maybe XR6 Turbo....could we transfer more Falcon buyers via fleet and novated leases...


Welcome to the 2014 Falcon and Territory Upgrades.....

It would sure make it easier to go from a G6ET to Terry for me,

I'm still surprised why a G6E/T gets side mirror's linked to seat memory and dip on reverse selection , or 8 way elec drivers seat and the Terry Titanium doesn't?

[TMC]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

The broadband manifold was deleted for turbo because it was unneccesary. It was designed to boost torque below 2500 in NA versions, where the turbo is making it in spades. Peak torque in the turbo versions was below that, so it achieved nothing.

Well that proves my point. The Turbo motor makes it's low down torque (where most of the driving in the Territory is done) from boost, whereas the NA got it's low down torque with intake manifold harmonics which keeps engine manifold vacuum up. The moment you hit boost on a turbo motor, the injectors have to run a richer mixture, so of course the turbo motor drank more. The NA motor kept it's manifold vacuum up and retained it's economy over the turbo. So I don't feel the AWD is what made the main difference to economy, it was the lack of a broadband manifold on the Turbo. Leave it in and you'd have even more low down torque with the Turbo, which would have probably retained more manifold vacuum and translated to better economy in the end.

[FPV GTHO]

You're assuming a motor breathing on vacuum would operate the same as a motor being pressure fed.

[aussie muscle]

hmm. i think focus will eventually become Ford's top selling local product. i can't imagine territory living much beyond falcon's death.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by TMC

Leave it in and you'd have even more low down torque with the Turbo, which would have probably retained more manifold vacuum and translated to better economy in the end.

Think about it, the broadband manifold switches to long runners below 2500 rpm to take advantage
of induction pulses at full throttle, in the turbo application that can never happen because at anything
above part throttle, the turbo cuts in and eliminates both vacuum and pulse effect.

[whynot]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Park assist, Voice control, dual zone climate ... those sorts of things

I would imagine that park assist would require some level of engineering (read expense) to integrate into the Territory. Such expense is fine if one is selling a few hundred thousand units per year (like the Focus), but I cannot see the ROI for the small numbers for a Territory run. Voice control would be nice, but first I would like Ford to kill all of the bugs in the existing ICC. Dual zone climate will always be one differentiator between the TX and the TS.

Originally Posted by jpd80

Previous Territory Turbo only came as AWD which increased purchase price by around $5,000 and ruined fuel economy.
A RWD Territory Turbo would be lighter and give economy around the same as SS Commodore - 12.5 l/100 km
and IMO, at around $48,000-$50,000 would attract as many buyers as Falcon XR6 turbo...

The market has spoken; the I6T is dead in the Territory. If there ever were another engine upgrade in the Territory, it would be a revised diesel.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

i can't imagine territory living much beyond falcon's death.

i was under the impression that if one went, it would spell the death of the other.