A great engine. I'd buy it, but don't expect it to set the world on fire with its 149 hp engine (not 150 hp), and someone tell Aus Ford Parts
to get some honesty back into there advertisments.
Many factually incorrect statements do nothing to help the new American owners.
1. A Ford US executive once commented: 'I would do anything, I mean anything, to get hold of that Aussie six for our cars. By comparison, it makes our engines look like boat anchors.'
Not true. Unsupported statement. If it was true, I'd use it myself 
2. Not only that, it had fantastic torque and because of its alloy-head design, weighed less than the US-built ironblock. - better for handling.
Partly untrue. Torque is awesome offline with an EFI 4.1, its hard to get a better 4.1 I6. It's on par with the AMC 4.0, Chrysler 245 and 265 engines. Weight wise, the 3.3 American I6 was about 385 to 400 pounds depending on year and depending on accessories. The US 200 engine is 1.66" lower, 0.5" shorter, and even with the later V8 bellhousing, it was way lighther and varied from 0.8 to 1.5" narrower in cylinder block width. The Aussie EFI 250 is an intermdiate scramble in size and parts between the US 200 and US250. Its much a Cleveland 351 is to a Windsor 351...better heads, heavier block, yet it still has critical dimensions (deck height, block width) smaller than its namesake.
Due to that trick 2.3 liter plenumb, the Alloy head and Fuel injection engine was well over 57 pounds heavier than the 2-barrel carb 4.1, which was 481 pounds. At 538 pounds without power steering, the EFI was heavier than the US 250, and the 300 and the 302 Windsor, which were 465, 490 and 470 pounds depending on whose figures you use. The 4.1 EFI was 181 pounds lighter than the power steered and air conditioned 4.9 Clevleand V8 used in the Falcon Fairmont, Fairlane and LTD.Since all the extrta weight is in the block, that's why they can hack 650 horsepower worth of turbo with very little modification
3. The 1320kg family sedan could put away the standard quarter in 16.5 seconds compared with the 5.8-litre V8 in 16.8 seconds (source: independent local magazine tests at the time).
Not true. The 1979 Falcon S pack 4-speed manual 5.8 covered the standing quarter mile in 15.8 seconds and did 126 mph at over 5000 rpm (200 rpm into the red line) with more on offer past that. That was 1450 kilos, no power steering. The last 1982 Fairmont ESP 4-speed did 16.1 seconds in very hot condidtions with fuel vapourisation, and 120 mph at 4800 rpm, again, it could exceed that figure with a little extra road. It was 1550 kilos. The 4.1 EFI did about 110 mph at 4400 rpm, and 16.9 seconds for the quarter. Loaded in the a 1590 kilo LTD with a 3-stage automatic, it did 17.8 seconds and wouldn't break 105 mph. A stock LTD or Fairmont 5.8 with FMX did 17.3 second quarters, and over 115 mph at 4400 rpm, it was around 1690 kilos.
4. Testers of the day found the six could also outperform the V8 in many in-gear acceleration times - typical tests of everyday motoring for traffic and overtaking situations.
Not true. No back to back 4.1 EFI verses 4.9 V8 was ever made by anyone but Ford Australia, and there is evidence to suggest the Fords press release cars purposely never included 4-speed or 3 stage auto 4.9 Falcons because they would prove to be the equal of the later 4.1EFI, an engine in planning since mid 1980.The time function for Fords EFI diagnostic kit was put in the XE handbook in early 1982, and appendum pages blacked out according to Modern Motor, so there lookd to be a martorium on Falcon 4.9 V8 Cleveland press cars from Ford's press vehicles. Hence, no comparison. Top speed of the last 4.9 Fairmont 3 speed auto was just over 112 mph. Compreshensive tests ran by Ford and jounalists gave various ratings loaded and unloaded with a 1590 kilo braked trailer. Modern Motor and Wheels journalists were able to run numbers on other 5.8 V8 Fords, and the last 4.9 auto Modern Motor tested took 18.8 seconds to do a standing quarter mile, while the 5.8 ESP took 16.5 seconds. The 4-speed manual 4.1 efi Falcon ran 16.9 second quarter mile with a 1430 kilo sedan (not 1320 kilos). By comparison, the Falcon 4-speed manual 4.9 rated at 17.3 secs by Ford. This was despite a weight of 1450 kilos as the 4.9, and despite a factory horspower rating of 188 hp (140 kW). The details Ford Australia showed in the press realease and advertisments was that a loaded 4.9 performed better than the EFI Falcon or Fairlane when loaded.
5. It also produced almost as much power, at lower revs than the V8 and therefore was able to stand toe-to-toe with V8s. It ran a much lower compression ratio (only 8.8 to 1) which not only made it less fuel sensitive, but gave exceptional performance on standard pump fuel.
This is a borderline statment. Any 4.1 EFI before October 1985 won't run well on 87 or 89 octane, especially not the oxygenated blends. It will run, but it was desiged for Australian leaded 97 RON, your 93 (RON+MON/2)
6. As addo said, the gearbox is the BW 40, which is exactly the same as the 1969 to 1971 AMC 304 slush box. It's a good gearbox, but you must set the kickdown cable to factory instructions ( 60 thou at idle in neutral, 1.75" total pullout when the engine is off). It's a bit like the AOD throttle valve in that it is so basic to do, that you wonder why people can't follow instructions. It's no good for a turbo unless you put Torington racers and a high stall converter in it.
The so-called Aussie version of the C4 (Called C4, C7 or C9 in the trade) and 4.1 EFI never went together factory. The last C4 /4.1 combo was in the Feb 1982 Fairmont/Fairlane/LTD, I think it was T-bar shift. Best darn 3 speed slushbox for the weight ever made.
