|
Dr Imran T
1,521 posts
69 months
|
em177 said: There's no replacement for displacement.....  There is - technology
|
|
|
Otispunkmeyer
2,912 posts
25 months
|
Jimbo. said: In a heartbeat. For what should be horrible, hateful ecomobiles, they're damn interesting, and they're only just getting started. The technology and the different approached adopted is fascinating: light weight? High compression? Compact? Turbocharging? Supercharging? Miller cycle engine? Every manufacture is going about it in different ways, all getting promising results, both from an economy and a performance POV.
The Ford 1.0 Ecoboost is supposed to be *very* good, and that's in the 1.2 Tonne Focus. Ford have said they're putting it in the Fiesta, so that should be a hoot, and frugal with it. Sorted!
EDIT: re. durability: shouldn't think it'd be an issue. Isn't there someone on here involved with the Ford Ecoboost development? Something about the turbos being expected to last (and tested for) 150,000 miles minimum?
I've spoken to a guy from Mahle and their 3 cylinder turbo development engine has been good as gold apparently. That thing runs even higher BMEP's than fords 1.0 Eco-boost engine as well and its a test donkey so it gets used properly! Designed properly from the ground up I dont think there should be too many issues. The FQ400 was just mitsi's usually 4 pot with the volume at 11, I doubt the engine was specifically designed for those sorts of power levels, only modified to make it work.
|
|
|
Derek Chevalier
672 posts
43 months
|
Otispunkmeyer said: Jimbo. said: In a heartbeat. For what should be horrible, hateful ecomobiles, they're damn interesting, and they're only just getting started. The technology and the different approached adopted is fascinating: light weight? High compression? Compact? Turbocharging? Supercharging? Miller cycle engine? Every manufacture is going about it in different ways, all getting promising results, both from an economy and a performance POV.
The Ford 1.0 Ecoboost is supposed to be *very* good, and that's in the 1.2 Tonne Focus. Ford have said they're putting it in the Fiesta, so that should be a hoot, and frugal with it. Sorted!
EDIT: re. durability: shouldn't think it'd be an issue. Isn't there someone on here involved with the Ford Ecoboost development? Something about the turbos being expected to last (and tested for) 150,000 miles minimum?
I've spoken to a guy from Mahle and their 3 cylinder turbo development engine has been good as gold apparently. That thing runs even higher BMEP's than fords 1.0 Eco-boost engine as well and its a test donkey so it gets used properly! Designed properly from the ground up I dont think there should be too many issues. The FQ400 was just mitsi's usually 4 pot with the volume at 11, I doubt the engine was specifically designed for those sorts of power levels, only modified to make it work. How do they get around the direct injection inlet valve deposit issue that affects other marques?
|
|
|
k-ink
4,710 posts
49 months
|
em177 said: There's no replacement for displacement..... Of course there is... over complexity, more stressed components, more failures, more garage bills. Great for car companies
|
|
|
Alfanatic
6,043 posts
89 months
|
Whether or not I'd buy one would be entirely down to the engine and car package. I prefer responsive engines with good torque at low revs, so NA and high capacity, but I'm not against forced induction if I can get along with the full package. If it feels like a T4, which is woolly and laggy and then a runaway train when it gets going, I'll like it. On the other hand if its just woolly and vague with no fireworks to compensate, like a Golf 4 GTI, then I won't like it.
And of course if you're using the performance, the economy will be no better than the big engined car. Forced induction improves cylinder filling efficiency, not fuel efficiency. It gets more charge in the cylinder, not more power out of the charge. To keep the fuel / air ratio consistent, if there's a big hairdryer pumping air into the cylinder, the injectors need to pump in more fuel to compensate.
There might be some minor pumping efficiency improvements around the fact that the cylinder isn't working against a low pressure on the downstroke, but then you lose efficiency pumping the exhaust gasses out through a big, obstructive turbine.
What it does is give the driver a choice of either keeping off boost and being slow and getting good mpg, or being quick and getting lousy mpg. Like any other car really, except more pronounced changes in both speed and mpg.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
mikeveal
1,124 posts
120 months
|
k-ink said: em177 said: There's no replacement for displacement..... Of course there is... over complexity, more stressed components, more failures, more garage bills. Great for car companies To make power, you burn fuel. The more fuel you burn, the more power you make. So, to allow you to burn more fuel, you can: Increase displacement. or Increase revs. or Increase charge density. The first can be done easily by simply scaling up your engine design. Doing so is lazy engineering, you'll have large, overweight unbalanced internals and parts under high stress. The second requires that the engine is better balanced, with less mass in the moving parts. The third requires stronger internals to deal with the extra pressure. So there are substitutes for displacement, and if the engineering design team have done their jobs, there's no reason for the engines to be any less reliable than a large displacement lump.
|
|
|
k-ink
4,710 posts
49 months
|
mikeveal said: So there are substitutes for displacement, and if the engineering design team have done their jobs, there's no reason for the engines to be any less reliable than a large displacement lump. Small cars are built down to a price. If you have twice the number of parts in a design it will cost more to make. So if the price is to remain fixed the quality of parts must surely suffer. I belive in two relevant things for this discussion: 1. KISS 2. The candle which burns twice as bright burns for half as long.
|
|
|
Froomee
724 posts
39 months
|
em177 said: There's no replacement for displacement..... +1 im not really a fan of small capacity (<1.4ish say) turbo engines although some of the cars they are in are pretty quick (Fiat 500,etc) and/or efficient (or at least they are supposed to be). I'm guessing in 5+ years time they will be all the rage as they get cheaper and people tune the life out of them until they blow up  Personally i would rather a nice straight 6, V8, etc although its hardly a fair comparison. I suspect these engine configurations will only be seen in the higher end cars going forward due to emissions which is unfortunate. 2032 medium hot hatches with 1.2 triple turbo engines does not sound appealing i suspect even IL4's will be considered a blessing then
|
|
|
Kentish
13,519 posts
104 months
|
What has happened to PH???? What is all this nonsense about liking tiny capacity engines  For a while, I'm sticking to my 2.8 V6 Turbo with it's 250 horses £475 a year to tax it now though!
|
|
|
k-ink
4,710 posts
49 months
|
ps Compare the running costs of similar power cars at opposite ends of the spectrum: complex and stressed v simple and lazy. Say 100k miles running a 400bhp Evo compared to a 400bhp Monaro. I suspect you'll be looking at many, many thousands of pounds spent fixing it v around £2.50. Results may vary 
|
|
|
Jimbo.
2,152 posts
59 months
|
intrepid44 said: Agreed.
Although, I would have thought in that case a differnt aproach would be used.
Such as using the Atkinson cycle with a more normal capcity level, and a turbo/supercharger to bring the power up,
Think it's called the Miller cycle from what I remember. 'tis what Nissan are using in the new Micra (the Miller cycle)
|
|
|
Motorrad
3,971 posts
57 months
|
Kentish said: What has happened to PH???? What is all this nonsense about liking tiny capacity engines For a while, I'm sticking to my 2.8 V6 Turbo with it's 250 horses £475 a year to tax it now though! I'll take your 2.8 V6 turbo and raise you a 4.6 V8 with a supercharger. f  k these crap, over complicated, 'eco' driven pieces of crap.
|
|
|
okie592
Original Poster
1,541 posts
37 months
|
Kentish said: What has happened to PH???? What is all this nonsense about liking tiny capacity engines For a while, I'm sticking to my 2.8 V6 Turbo with it's 250 horses £475 a year to tax it now though! But then all the people who buy a little ecoboost ford fiesta and do 70mpg leave all the petrol for people like us to use for a proper cause. going for a hooonnn
|
|
|
philmots
2,565 posts
130 months
|
Kentish said: What has happened to PH???? What is all this nonsense about liking tiny capacity engines For a while, I'm sticking to my 2.8 V6 Turbo with it's 250 horses £475 a year to tax it now though! Respond well to a map! Had mine done
|
|
|
IanMorewood
2,445 posts
118 months
|
I had plans to buy a Smart Roadster 5 years ago then found out we had a little one on the way which put the kibosh on that so in theory yes very much so.
|
|
|
Fire99
8,115 posts
99 months
|
If you lot could snap up the 'diddy brigade' cars as quickly as possible, maybe prices of the Vauxhall Maloo VXR8 will tumble and i'll snap one up Unless you're in the market for a brand new car (and do hefty mileage), it's all fairly irrelevant at the mo.
|
|
|
Willy Nilly
2,962 posts
37 months
|
Motorrad said: Kentish said: What has happened to PH???? What is all this nonsense about liking tiny capacity engines For a while, I'm sticking to my 2.8 V6 Turbo with it's 250 horses £475 a year to tax it now though! I'll take your 2.8 V6 turbo and raise you a 4.6 V8 with a supercharger. f k these crap, over complicated, 'eco' driven pieces of crap. Your supercharged V8 is hardly bereft of internal components now is it? My car has half the pistons and can make power without a parasitic supercharger, probably because it wasn't designed in the 1930's.
|
|
|
craigb84
794 posts
22 months
|
Haven't really read much of the 5 pages but if I was just plodding round town and my office was only a few miles away and I didn't have to do any business travel then yes, absolutely, because I'd also have something less sensible tucked away for weekends.
If however I'm working up and down the country or travelling for work then I'd want a bigger engined cruiser as i don't know if I could do with hearing a little 1.0l turbo whaling like a banshee at 70+ mph for hours on end.
|
|
|
Jimbo.
2,152 posts
59 months
|
craigb84 said: If however I'm working up and down the country or travelling for work then I'd want a bigger engined cruiser as i don't know if I could do with hearing a little 1.0l turbo whaling like a banshee at 70+ mph for hours on end. The thing is...they don't. IIRC the Skoda 1.2 TSi is doing 2400rpm at 70mph. That's the same as my (ancient!) 2.4 Volvo 850 land-barge!
|
|
|
Grovsie26
1,302 posts
37 months
|
Depends what car i was after and what i was spending.
it i was after something special, a drivers car, then no, a cheap fun runabout, then yeah.
|
|
