Yeah mate, funnily enough I also owned a 1981 Ford Cortina. The most underpowered and dangerous car I have owned. But a busted Falcon with a quarter million kay's on the clock is going to be full of problems. All you bought when you picked up a car with that many kay's on it is someone else's headaches.
Just recently bought a 96 EF Wagon GLI... planning to have it with LPG for 'dual fuel'... any comments will be highly appreciated... checked with one Italian and one U.S. shop for conversion... for a whooping 3 and a half grand!... Is it worth it?... Any comments from mates who have this kind of car... Thanks.
Hi dual fuel converter.
No, I would not do that. It's uneconomic. The car is not worth it.
Dual fuel only saves on the DIFFERENCE between LPG and petrol.
Keep in mind, it goes less distance on a litre of LPG as a litre of petrol.
Add in the enormous cost of the conversion, it does not add up on an older car at all.
Just drive and work on the falcon yourself. They are great cars.
Converting a car to dual fuel sounds good on paper, however there are enormous disadvantages.
First you're adding an after market system onto an existing complicated setup. Increasing the chances of break down and failure.
Secondly, the engine will not be tuned to have the best of both worlds, however a compromise approach will be selected. This selection isn't optimised for either fuel or gas, hence the high mileage when in petrol, and the uneconomical gas.
If LPG is to be considered, I suggest going for an LPG only solution.
Also with the transmission randomly change down, I am having that same problem. It also skips a beat.
For all those having the EF/EL transmission down shift problem, it is a relatively easy fix. There is a switch on the trans that tells the transmission ECU what gear the trans is in. These wear out over time, causing an incorrect signal to be sent to the ECU, which in turn results in the intermittent down shifting problem. The switch itself is from memory around $100, plus whatever your trans shop quotes for labour. Also when the switch is faulty, it will log a diagnostic code that most reputable trans shops can check for with a handheld diagnostic computer.
I just found this site as I am just about to get rid of the Ford Falcon EL '96. Wish I did my research BEFORE I bought the stupid thing! Nothing but trouble!
Enjoyed the cruising at high speeds, but that is just about all.
Had it converted to dual fuel, which wasn't a problem, but should have got rid of it years ago. Me too, never another Ford. Talk about a crap car! Had low Km's when first bought, serviced regularly, etc, but it would have been cheaper to get a loan for a new car than keep that thing.
Glad to see it go. Bought a 2006 Toyota Corolla.
Falcons and Commodores will use more fuel as the mileage increases. This is normal, because as the engine wears, it needs more fuel to do the same job if you want it to last big klms. The computers are programed at the factory to do this. All my Commodores and Falcons got worse fuel economy when they clicked over 40 k, then 100 k, and again at 200 k.
I also think this government incentive ie giving you $2000 towards a new car built after 1996 to save fuel is a load of rubbish. All our early Falcons, from XR built in 1966 through to the XF Falcon in 1987 used heaps less fuel than the 1996 Ghia and our 2004 RTV Ford ute. This is because the Ghia is 220 hp and the BA has near enough to 250 hp. Both our cars use about 14 to 16 litres per 100 klms around the city in Hobart, but only use about 10 liters per 100 klms on the highway. This is normal, regardless to what the manufactures claim. The old Fords used about 10 to 12 litres per 100 klms, regardless how or where we drove them.
We stopped driving Commodores in 2004, because they understeer too badly and all 3 Commodores we owned used around 16 to 20 liters per 100 klms average. The 4 wheel drive Commodore ute had weak diffs and tailshafts in them that were noisy and clunky at 25 thousand klms, and the 2 wheel drive sedan had severe grinding from the diff at under 20 k. I laughed looking at the new Commodore and Falcon claiming about 13 litres per 100 klms, because unless you drive around a test track, they just won't do it.
The odd thing is our older favorite Falcons we kept have much better economy at 110 kph than at 60. The faster you drive, the better the economy in our Falcons, and it annoys me when people drive erratically between 45 and 70 in a 80 zone, causing our cars to waste petrol. If you have cruse control, use it as it will save you fuel.