Was the AU ahead of it's time?

[FGII-XR6]

Please no AU bashing If you have something constructive to add good if not don't bother
although it has been the subject of critical review lets look at something not considered by many critics, aerodynamics
the AU was a very aerodynamic car as you can see from the Cd figures below
0.295Ford Falcon1998
0.30Nissan 180SX1989
0.310Lamborghini Diablo1990
0.32McLaren F11992
0.33Mazda RX-7 FC3C1987
0.33Lamborghini Murcielago2001
0.34Ferrari 360 Modena1999
0.34Aston Martin DB92004
0.36Ferrari Testarossa1986
0.35BMW M3 Convertible2005
these figures put the AU streets ahead in aerodynamics against some surprising competition.
makes the design of the AU look like a well engineered car.
I think a lot of the initial criticism was a result of the dramatically different look compared to previous falcons.
Ironically the BA look that many prefer is far less aerodynamic at 0.35. with the FG only slightly better at 0.34

[Smoke Pursuit]

They were a great car... The fuel economy was amazing~!!

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by DASH GT

They were a great car... The fuel economy was amazing~!!

and you couldn't kill them. like the energiser bunny, the kept going and going and going

[glenneaux]

[EFFalcon]

trading off looks to improve aero doesn't make a car ahead of its time.

[Wretched]

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automob...ag_coefficient

The 1990 LS400 and 1984 Firebird TransAm had 0.29

The AU (S2 onwards) were a good car far better than the successor but ahead of its time? I don't think so.

[EFFalcon]

the EF has a claimed 3.1

soo....

[Pinkbits]

And I think it was these aerodynamics & the body being a much more sleeker design that moved away from the more squarer previous models that people were accustomed to that maybe "frightened" them.
Although I do agree the dash of the series 1 wasn't to my liking & to a lot of others as we all know, the car itself has aged very well.

[mik]

Well, we could add to the areo dynamics package a feature that to my knowledge NO other brand or model in Australia has had to this day , I refer to the fail safe cooling system that stops the motor being cooked by catastrophic loss of coolant.

[FGII-XR6]

another advanced feature for it's time and I seem to recall smartshield was considered high end security at the time

Originally Posted by mik

Well, we could add to the areo dynamics package a feature that to my knowledge NO other brand or model in Australia has had to this day , I refer to the fail safe cooling system that stops the motor being cooked by catastrophic loss of coolant.

[JR.]

I've always wondered if the media backlash that accompanied it wouldn't have happened if they'd waited another 6-8 months before launching and not put out the under done S1.

As for ahead of its time, I think the answer to that is a resounding yes. Look at the rave reviews Mercedes got when they launched their version of the AU (Oops, I mean CLS) in 2004...

If only Ford had had the stones to try and sell the swoopy curved shape as a four door coupe back in '98, it may have been a whole different story.

[Smoke Pursuit]

AU1 Forte hurt them... If they had started with AUII they would have been alot better off.

I still miss my AUIII XR6, everytime i see one I go "wow"... Just something about those Tickford cars.

[xisled]

IMO to be ahead of your time, it needs to be the whole package including looks. This is why I think the car had the technology ahead of its time, but it was not ahead of its time in the market.

[Professor Farnsworth]

forgetting technological and aerodynamic arguments, the AU was definitely ahead of its time in regard to its looks. It fits in very well now with brand new cars, and has for a few years. It will never look old as such, it's a hard car to pick the vintage of if you don't already know.

[Redrum]

I did not mind the AU, I owned 6 of them. The series 1 though was a disaster. The wheels on the XR, the grille on the Forte, the name Forte, the cheap dodgy rattly interior. The series 2 was a much better car, but the damage had already been done. Ahead of it's time in design, I don't think so, just out there.

[THABOSS]

Loved the AU, it was the Green eyed monster of Lowndes that converted me from being an all car lover to a ford fan.

[SSD-85]

I dont believe it was "ahead" of its time, but rather has stood the test of time since. Its definitely the best engineered Falcon. AS far as design goes, Ford US Edge design themes had long since been implemented before the AU.

A little known fact is the collection of curves with sharp angle ends on the AU panels contribute to better impact absorbtion/diversion in a collision. Dont ask me to recall where I read that.

[Ford_The_Win]

Looks wise yes, as the AU still looks fresh, but they didn't make a very good transition from the EL. There weren't any shared features to give a family resemblance which is probably one of the things that upset buyers. Holden did a much better job making a logical and obvious transition from the VS to the VT. For what it's worth I would have chosen the VT over the AU every time back in the 1990s because it was a less brutal look, but the VT looks like crap now and has aged terribly. The AU had a lot of clever technological features but the watts link live axle in the lower spec models is much more unpredictable than the IRS equipped models so that's a bit of a letdown. Bulletproof cars but they're a shocking rust trap, that's probably the only downside to the AU.

[graham7773]

I agree with the op but would add that IMO the engine should have been used from the EA. Surprising fact, the 1993 Ford Telstar (actually 1992-1996) had a drag coefficient of 0.2 and a reviewer whinged about its "bulbous shape". I am very happy with fuel economy of 7l to 100k on my trips to Queensland even though some of the Falcons are claiming the same for cars 400 to 500kg heavier.

[fastbaja5b]

I thought that the most aerodynamic car was still the Opel Calibra at 0.26

[GlenW]

The AU was so far ahead of its time even Mercedes Benz copied it. Years later.

[supershifty]

Originally Posted by Pinkbits

And I think it was these aerodynamics & the body being a much more sleeker design that moved away from the more squarer previous models that people were accustomed to that maybe "frightened" them.
Although I do agree the dash of the series 1 wasn't to my liking & to a lot of others as we all know, the car itself has aged very well.

^^^^ Well said!

The detractors of the AU from what I've read on this forum (and verbally) seem to complain about looks of the model, especially the AU1. Maybe we just got used to the body shape, and the subtle cosmetic improvements AU2 onwards gained them some acceptance.

I've never heard anything bad about the mechanicals of the model and in the long run since it's birth, the durability of the AU is testament to it's quality.

I've seen a few AU's on this forum and on the road that I'd love to own. There's a member on here that had a gorgeous burgundy Fairmont (written off) that was one of the best I've seen.

I'm not a big fan of the AU shape - however it's a sure fire example for not judging this book by it's cover.

Cheers!

Edit: Remember the shock/horror when Ford released the XD shape after the XA/B/C's?

[Silver Ghia]

The aerodynamics of my AU1 Fairmont were vastly superior to that of the BA Ghia, reflected by the very noticeable difference in fuel economy on country runs.

As an aeronautical engineer trained in assessing aerodynamic features, I often admired the shape of my Fairmont, the headlights were nicely faired in with the bonnet and guards to reduce airflow disruption, and with the rubber seals under the bonnet above the headlights to reduce air leakage thus improve efficiency. The windscreen/roof/rear window was a continuous curve (the roof was curved higher compared to the BA), also the rounded sides at the rear, all combining to keep the airflow smooth around the car.

All in all, a car that to me was well designed to minimise form drag thus maximising fuel economy.

The AU1 Fairmont I had IMO was a beautiful shape especially with the chrome grille, except for perhaps the rear tailights giving a somewhat droopy rear appearance. Well ahead of its time, I think, even now I think its a nice looking car when I see one.

Agreed the AU1 Forte was the ugly duckling with that grille and bonnet, however the AU1 Fairmont, especially in Sparkling Burgundy like mine was, was the most attractive of the AU series.

[mike_nofx]

Toyota Prius was designed with aerodynamics in mind.

Aerodynamics isn't everything, particularly if you sacrifice the cars looks (heavily sacrifice in the case of AU ) some of the best looking cars are some of the least aerodynamic cars.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

Please no AU bashing If you have something constructive to add good if not don't bother
although it has been the subject of critical review lets look at something not considered by many critics, aerodynamics
the AU was a very aerodynamic car as you can see from the Cd figures below
0.295Ford Falcon1998
0.30Nissan 180SX1989
0.310Lamborghini Diablo1990
0.32McLaren F11992
0.33Mazda RX-7 FC3C1987
0.33Lamborghini Murcielago2001
0.34Ferrari 360 Modena1999
0.34Aston Martin DB92004
0.36Ferrari Testarossa1986
0.35BMW M3 Convertible2005
these figures put the AU streets ahead in aerodynamics against some surprising competition.
makes the design of the AU look like a well engineered car.
I think a lot of the initial criticism was a result of the dramatically different look compared to previous falcons.
Ironically the BA look that many prefer is far less aerodynamic at 0.35. with the FG only slightly better at 0.34

The Cd is not just a simple thing with the lower the number the better it is.

When cars are travelling quickly they need to generate down pressure to keep them on the road as the pressure on the air forced under the vehicle will tend to lift it off the ground.

In order to do this it must redirect the air above it which creates drag.

This is not a huge problem at low speeds on roads and as Falcons are seldom found outside Australia they are not often driven at high speeds like the supercars in your list.

But getting back to the AU. I owned a couple of them (Ghia and Forte) and the fuel economy was not noticably any better or worse than previous E series or subsequent B series. I can't compare high speed fuel economy as they all cut out at 180km/h which was rather frightening when it happened.

Were they ahead of their time? Yes and no.
They were really a string of experiments, some of which worked others failed.
Some of the AU experiments:
VCT
IRS
Dedicated range of sport vehicles (FTE)
Various styling efforts. (dual wings, ugly grills, partial leather etc.)
Detached tub on ute.
Special custom performance engine (T series)
Integrated satnav
Upgraded brake option
Luxury wagons
Steering wheel transmission control

And I am sure there were many more. Some survived, some did not.

AU was more a watershed than ahead of its time. It marked the transition from the conservative E series to the world class vehicles we have now.

AU is the Ford version of VT, the epoch of the 21st century Australian car.

[Cheese3]

Originally Posted by Ford_The_Win

Bulletproof cars but they're a shocking rust trap, that's probably the only downside to the AU.

Whats this rust you speak of ? I own two and the only little bit on one car and fixed it , was the boot gas strut lugs . . .

[SSD-85]

Originally Posted by Cheese3

Whats this rust you speak of ? I own two and the only little bit on one car and fixed it , was the boot gas strut lugs . . .

It can get pretty bad in the boot channel, bootlid, boot strut mounts, upper c-pillar & behind the rear bar.

[Falcon SXR8]

I think with the au you could really see the difference between models ford really tried hard in that area I mean the fairmonts had different bonnets, dashs, irs suspension and the xr versions you could tell a mile away. And they drove fantastic so much better than previous models infact to me my ba turbo feels like a step back compared to my au, my ba feels more like my old eb xr8 in the steering department.

[Falcman0o7]

AU's are cool

[Nikked]

Yes. The AU was ahead of its time...

Just look at how it made use of shapes to decrese the visable size of the car, rather then adding bulk, they subtracted it it. Unfortuantly, the Australian public was caught off gaurd with this approach (espcially when Holden lazedly handed us a commodore, that shared most of its design with a 1994 opal...), and this lead to Ford going for a more "generic" design with the BA...