While my car was being serviced yesterday, I kicked a few tyres in the showroom and was collared by a sales guy who wanted to sell me something from the ecoboost range. I showed interest in the Focus when I discovered that it's the only model which comes with a spare wheel, on teh rest it's an extra.
They claim 125ps for the 1 litre engine, which (they said) is equivalent to my 1.8 petrol Mondeo power.
When I got home I started getting my head round the idea of a 3 cylinder engine, and I assume that the cranks are 120° apart? My head hurts.
Absolute power is just about the last characteristic of an engine that determines what a car is like to drive; I tried to find a torque curve for it, but was unable to.
It seems likely that this is the way things will go, especially for the US market, that doesn't have a fuel suitable for high-tech diesels.
The three cylinder vauxhall lump had a very strange sound, a sort of thrum to it, it reminded me of driving a beetle in its power delivery. The Ecoboost uses an off balance flywheel to counteract the missing piston, but I haven't seen one yet. Ask for a 24 hour test drive is the best bet, it then becomes easy to spot any pitfalls.
I have driven the Fiat Twin Air which seems to based on the same concept as the Ecoboost. The term "s**te" comes to mind. It may have the power of a bigger engine but it has no torque at low rpm so you need to drive it like a screaming hornet. Of course if you drive it to keep up with traffic then the mpg is poor. If you turn on the "Eco" function and follow the programmed shifts then you get good mpg at a snail's pace. Having the engine cut out every time you come to a halt as also a PITA.
A four cylinder inline engine isn't inherently perfect. Why it became the 'norm' for small cars is veiled in history. Probably just a compromise which then became the de facto standard.
I wonder what the cost savings for this engine versus a 1.6 would be over the lifetime of the vehicle? I'm pretty sure it would be fairly insignificant for average users, and not worth the reduction in driving pleasure.
I read it that Steve didn't like the feature on any car, not just the Fiat.
OOI, what happens to heating and A/C when the engine stops? At this time of year, wouldn't it steam up?
Cam belt runs in oil like a chain and is supposed to have long "everlasting" life as lubrication means belt face doesn't wear. As it's inside engine casings it's as expensive as a chain to replace. Being "everlasting" Ford won't have to list it as a spare, may have to buy an engine (not just a bottom end). As it's failure will come without the noisy warning of a failing chain and be catastrophic, it's demise will be the engines too, so it will last as long as the engine.
Needs special low friction 0W/20 oil only from BP (via Ford dealers) for
20,000-km (12,427-mi) service intervals. I have no doubt it will be found that some cheaper oils have additives that eat the belt.
Chris's link to the torque curve shows it's got much better torque than
1.8 Duratec. 1.8 Duratec output is 125 hp (93 kW) at 6000 rpm with 122 lb·ft (165 N·m) of torque at 4250 rpm. Ecoboost 200Nm @ 3150rpm (Ford claim higher torque than 1.8 Duratec over 1500-4500rpm) and 127bhp @
6124 rpm. Only if you abuse motors by lugging them with WOT below
2000rpm will you find any lack of torque.
Ford's spiel.
formatting link
It has a big hump of torque like a turbo Diesel, peak is maybe 500rpm higher but unlike a turbo Diesel doesn't drop stone dead at 4500rpm. A turbo diesel's usable range is about 1750-4500rpm, a 2.6:1 ratio, 1.0L Ecoboost has about 2000-6000rpm a 3:1 ratio so slightly wider spread.
It's all down the marriage of direct injection, variable valve timing and small turbo. Nissan had small turbo and variable valve timing "N-VCT" engines 20 years ago but restricted them to high end Japanese market only models. 1999 Nissan Silvia S15 produced 125bhp/L, from turbo with inlet and exhaust cam phasing. The addition of direct injection and lower end market application is what's really new. Ford still haven't taken the technology to the limit as variable valve timing is just
1990's cam phasing technology (Ford are just 14 years behind in getting to market).
Back in 2002 Nissan's SR20VET used Honda V-tec and turbo to produce
140bhp/L but it was only sold in X-Trail GT in Japan, Technology and specific performance that 10 years later is yet to arrive for the mass market. BMW 1 series will be going FWD 3 cylinder 1.5L, up to 220bhp,
146bhp/L (in i8?). Valvetronic, direct injection and turbo.
Mahle have run a demonstrator 1.2L 3 cylinder engine, 192bhp 160bhp/L with TWIN turbo and 160bhp, 133bhp/L single turbo. Direct injection but they still only have cam phase and don't use fully variable valve timing.
formatting link
Someone will be along by 2015/6 to trump Ford's Ecoboost, Mahle and BMW with the full suite of modern engine tech. The combination of variable valve timing and lift, with direct injection and twin turbo makes
175bhp/L achievable for a production engine with good torque range.
Unless I mistake what you say, BMW are already using Valve Tronic variable lift, throttle-less intake with DUAL vanos variable valve timing in their 4 cylinder N20 engine, along with the twin scrowl turbo housing producing
260ftlbs and 245hp with direct injection.
The 3/4's triple chopped down of the 4 pot engine that is forthcoming, will use all that technology too.
Won't be long before we see FSI variations of turbo directed injection engines, which will reducing pumping looses yet further.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.