Australia's automotive press has welcomed Ford's newest addition to the aviary, the FG Falcon, with open arms.
The Carsales Network has not been backwards about expressing admiration for Ford's latest large car, but it seems that our ratings for the Falcon have caused some heartburn out there in reader land.
Tibetan independence? Zimbabwean elections? Neither of those can compare with the controversy aroused by the ratings scored by the Falcon in accordance with our established system. A select few readers' comments are reproduced below, with our comments, when appropriate (and occasionally, when inappropriate):
I am a little bemused! You rate the new Falcon 3.0/5.0, but you rave about the vehicle in the test. So what is it to be?
Stephen Lipshus
CN says: The base model XT, the XR6 and the XR8 scored three stars, but the XR6 Turbo rated 3.5. All those models were rated on the basis of better than average, which in the highly competitive large car segment, is no small feat in itself.
It's true that you should get some badging for the luxury pack on the XR's but I think way too much is being made over the curtain airbags. $300 is a bugger-all cost option and I would rather have a robust car with no airbags than a shoddy one with ten. The across the board stability control more than makes up for this and you can always just tick the option box if it worries you that much.
Allabaster
Too much emphasis is placed on the lack of the curtain airbags on the Falcon. Be reasonable, they're a $300 option which puts prices on par with the Commodore.
Glen
CN says: Fact of the matter is we're not comparing FG with a "shoddy car with ten airbags"... Yes, $300 isn't a lot to pay, ergo they should be standard -- especially in the XR models and G6.
Your maths seems a little astray. The overall average on the XR6 turbo gives 3.8 -- isn't that closer to four than 3.5 overall?
Safety for the cars is only three out of five -- what's the basis for this comment? There seems to be no evidence as to why it isn't higher. Having commented highly on the car's dynamics etc and bearing in mind the claim that it might well be the first five-star crash-rated car, a score of three out of five is a little underdone. Is this a case of motoring journalists being a little miffed because they can only see the number of airbags as being relevant?
James Brook
CN says: James, check out our comprehensive explanation of our rating system here. There's a link to this page wherever we publish our ratings.
Out aggregate ratings are rounded down, not up. A three-star rating is still an above average score -- and that's the Falcon pitted not only against Commodore and Aurion principally, but also the new Honda Accord (also a three-star car in our view), and the Nissan Maxima in the same market segment.
Ford has not claimed that the new Falcon matches or exceeds the VE Commodore for body rigidity, so it's not just about curtain airbags. Still, we would put this point to you, if your kids are in the back seat, wouldn't you want their heads protected in a side impact?
Reading the article, you RAVE about how good the vehicle is. Looking at the raw scoring of the vehicle says otherwise.
I'd suggest you update the scores to reflect the views expressed by the testers.
My reasoning is that some people will just look at the numbers and not read the article in full.
You've written "We'd suggest that as a group, in terms of affordability, they are now the best of their type in the world. That is if we were afraid of being referred to as "gushing"..." The FG clearly sounds like a 4.5/5.0 score.
Phil C.
CN says: We agree that 'rating envy' is a pitfall of providing a scorecard with a vehicle review. Casual readers may skip over the text and only note the ratings.
Even so, is the FG Falcon really worth a score of 4.5 out of five to compensate? That places it between "Excellent" and "Exceptional"; something like an S-Class Mercedes for about a quarter of the price? By extrapolation, every other large car in the segment would have to be a dud -- and that clearly isn't the case.
3.0/5.0 for safety, when this car has already been announced as a five-star rated car as far as safety is concerned. I am wondering how you come up with such a low figure? Do you expect cars to be in a giant bubble nowadays to achieve this sort of rating? Considering the amount of standard features as standard nowadays, I really think you should review this once again.
Ben
CN says: Actually, it is yet to be officially announced as a five-star ANCAP winner. Our ratings do not follow the linear scale of the Australian New Car Assessment Program, although we do take note of the ANCAP results to help us arrive at our own safety score. Check out our ratings explanation here for more.
The only way a car could score five stars in our estimation is if it DID drive around in a bubble -- and inflicted no death or injury on either occupants or other road users, ever.
How come you give the XR6 a safety rating of 3/5 stars? The old BF XR6 model topped the latest Wheels Active Safety Test. And the current model is expected to get a five-star rating (unlike the Aurion and the Commodore).
Whynot
CN says: Active safety isn't all there is to safety. Passive safety isn't all there is to safety. IT's a combination of both.
As already mentioned above, the five-star ANCAP rating has NOT been officially announced for the Falcon and -- even if it were -- how does a five-star car compare with two four-star cars (Aurion and Commodore)? Is the Falcon going to be so much better than the other two for boasting such things as seatbelt reminders? Would we rate the Falcon a perfect score (within the Carsales system) for a diminishing returns approach to crash safety?
What a joke. How can the new Falcon rate only 3/5 for safety when it is going to be the first Aussie five-star car? Yes, it doesn't have curtain airbags standard but it does have HEAD/thorax bags. Even without the extra bags it is safer than the other Aussies. They must rate 2/5 then.
Naddis01
CN says: Commodore and Aurion have side impact airbags to protect the thorax AND curtain airbags to protect the heads of not just the front-seat occupants, but those in the rear as well. In addition, we understand that the Falcon does not match the torsional rigidity or body strength of the Commodore, so how many marks do we deduct from Falcon for that?
Just need some clarification on the scoring system. I'm assuming on a scale of 1-5, a three means average? That the system makes the XR6 and XR8 'average' cars (I thought that's what a Camry would score), isn't my major niggle. That you've rated the safety of the car a three out of five, when supposedly the Falcon is looking at a possible five-star ANCAP rating doesn't entirely make a lot of sense to me? Its 'average' safety is the equivalent of an ANCAP five-star rating? Confusing
Tim
CN says: Tim, hopefully the above explanations will assist. As mentioned, a score of three is an 'above average' rating. Certain variants within the Falcon range (with six airbags) have recorded a 3.5/5.0 rating within our system.
EXTREMELY poor article. How are you going to justify only giving the six drivetrain only 3.5/5.0??...[Ed: cut for space and sanity].
Then there's the XR6T powerplant, which you only give 4/5 yet rave on about how good it is [Ed: more stuff edited out]. 3/5 and 3.5/5 for the XR6 and XR6T respectively is ridiculous [Ed: cut once more on the basis of being a self-indulgent diatribe].
This review was awful. I cannot put into words my irritation [Ed: more emotive assertions that cover our bias, incompetence and the review's inaccuracy].
Poor effort. Poor article. I will not be visiting carpoint.com.au again.
David
CN says: For someone who cannot put his irritation into words, you've made a sterling effort. 'Bye.
I find it amazing that a test of a standard Omega Ute is rated at four stars (6cyl auto: 4.5 stars for driveline and 3.5 for safety), yet the new Falcon XR6 turbo is a 3.5 star car (four for driveline and three for safety). What are the consistencies in these two reviews?
Colin Atkinson
CN says: You're comparing a sedan (the Falcon), with a Ute (the Omega). This review was written before the introduction of the FG Falcon Ute and compared the Holden not only with the BF II Falcon Ute, but also pretty much every other vehicle in the VFACTS segment, 4x2 pick-ups and cab chassis vehicles. That means HiLux, Navara and even Proton Jumbuck and the Mahindra Pik-Up. The 4.5-star rating for engine/drivetrain/chassis isn't just about the engine and transmission, it's also a function of the car's platform and other running gear.
Regular readers will be aware that in our rating system, the aggregate is rounded down, not up. Even where the Falcon scored a 3.8 average, that figure is rounded down to 3.5. It may not seem fair, but to round up and allow any car the undeserved benefit of averaging is not fair either.
The way the Carsales Network rating system works is outlined here and we draw our readers' attention in particular to the breakdown of scores:
5.0/5.0 Exceptional
4.0/5.0 Excellent
3.0/5.0 Above average
2.5/5.0 Class average
2.0/5.0 Below class average
1.0/5.0 Sub-standard
0.0/5.0 Unsuitable
The scale is not a typical linear scale such as the ANCAP testing body uses. With our rating system, it's extremely unlikely a car could come to market, having complied with Australian Design Rules -- and score less than perhaps 1.5 in any area. Similarly, since no car is perfect, it's virtually impossible that any car will ever achieve a score of five.
Ratings apply according to how a vehicle compares with its competitors, either in its VFACTS market segment or against one or more models within a sub-stratum of the segment, depending on which seems more appropriate.
Due to the intense competition between cars from different makers in the same segments, it's harder, statistically, for a new car to be far superior to its competition.
Based on the six half-point ratings (2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5), which a car can actually score in reality, to suggest either the FG Falcon should be rated 4.0 or the Commodore should represent the new class average on 2.5 would be an egregious abuse -- suggesting that the Commodore is effectively the large car equivalent of a Proton Satria while the Falcon is the large car equivalent to the standard setting, Mazda 2. On the swings and roundabouts of large car specifications, the Falcon and Commodore are much closer than that, in our view.
People complaining that the VE Commodore was rated more highly than the FG Falcon range on release, should bear in mind that when it was released, the Commodore was competing against the BF II Falcon and the Mitsubishi 380, as well as other large cars such as the previous Honda Accord, Nissan Maxima and Hyundai Grandeur. At that stage (mid-2006), the Aurion itself was still to be released.
Commodore offered standard stability control, which the Falcon didn't and the 380 didn't even offer that as an option. Obviously, as new models are released and old ones fall away, the ratings for older cars become less relevant, because they're based on new car comparisons that no longer apply.
If there's one thing apparent from the feedback, the Falcon is not short of supporters -- and hopefully for Ford, that will benefit the blue oval brand in the marketplace.
To comment on this article click here