"Daryl Walford" <dwalford@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:13ueuvkf3k1d6be@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I considered buying one but after his comment I changed my mind.
> A well set up dedicated gas Falcon could have been a huge seller so its
> got me stuffed why Ford did such a half arsed job on it.
They were worried about engine failures.
They had a few damaged engines during initial testing where the engines
backfired and bent a few rods (they must be ****ing pissweak rods if a gas
backfire will bend one, but anyway :), but they wanted to get a dedicated
gas vehicle onto the market. As much as they liked to brag about "not
making
taxi's anymore" when the BA was first released, they still make a taxi
pack
model available under the counter.
Problem was they spent all of 28 bucks on the gas equipment, and it's
rank.
To get the things to run *reasonably* reliably they have to set it as
conservative as buggery, and as a result the engine's power output takes a
*massive* hit. They put a green rocker cover on the Egas engine to make it
look pretty, but the only difference between it and the regular petrol
engine is that it uses the slightly stronger XR-6 connecting rods to try
to
avoid damage if a backfire occurs.
They *could* have built a nice engine with characteristics to suit the gas
perfectly, but they didn't, and the result is an under-performing car that
isn't all that popular.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
|
