Thursday 6th September 2012

PH Blog: Ecoboosted

Shameless PR stunt maybe but that 'ring lap shows why we should all be excited about Ford's Ecoboost 1.0

---

It takes something pretty exciting on here to ignite a 285-comment thread. Something more exciting, you might think, than the announcement of a 100hp, 1.0-litre, three-cylinder engine to go in an entry-level Ford Focus.

Numberplates do not necessarily a road car make

But against the 'we don't get out of bed for less than 500hp' stereotype the potential offered by a small, lightweight and easily tuned engine was quickly realised by PHers and applications beyond Focuses (and now Fiestas and Mondeos) identified. And now demonstrated by Ford.

OK, claiming lap records and supercar-beating comparisons for a single-seater racing car with treaded tyres and bolted on lights is a tad spurious. But the point it demonstrates about the extra-curricular potential for a mass-produced, lightweight, turbocharged engine with a 200hp per litre specific output and cylinder block smaller than an A4 sheet of paper is the kind of thing that gets cogs whirring in our heads. This is a small engine with a big future too, Ford investing £110m in a new production line in Cologne to build it and reckoning global production could top 1.3m per year before too long.

Hot new Sevens to use forced aspiration

Indeed, we were only discussing it the other day when new Caterham boss Graham Macdonald dropped by. And you can see the potential there, especially as forced aspiration has already been confirmed for the next wave of ludicrous Seven variants. The Sigma and Duratec engines are still core - there are R300 racers who've done four seasons on 2.0 Duratecs without need for a major overhaul - but who'd bet against an Ecoboost one day finding its way into a Seven.

And the potential for the likes of BAC, Ariel, Radical and others is only too clear to see. British sports car manufacturers are famously creative when it comes to dreaming up exciting applications for mass-market engines and Ford has a history of supporting them with crate motors for just such use. Senior Ford exec Roelant de Waard, quoted in the press material released with the 'ring lap announcement, has himself raced Caterhams so, you'd hope, has a personal interest in seeing what small-scale manufacturers can do with it.

This has the potential to be a lot of fun...

Sure, we all love a big V8. But it's nice to know there's a future beyond the point such things become truly indefensible and that it's British talent and engineering know-how that's driving it forward.

Dan

[robinessex]

When you rememeber that in the F1 turbo era, 1500cc engines were reputed to output circa 1500bhp, looks as if this engine trend is only scratching the surface.

[Varn]

robinessex said:

When you rememeber that in the F1 turbo era, 1500cc engines were reputed to output circa 1500bhp, looks as if this engine trend is only scratching the surface.

Those qualifying engines didn't last too long...

If this car went into production at a sensible price I would buy one immediately.

[theJT]

Wringing vast power out of an engine isn't hard... doing it in a way that the engine lives long enough for you to get further than the couple of hundred miles that an F1 race lasts is a very different proposition. The real test of these is going to be how well they're still running with 50,000 miles under them... how well with 100,000... if they've actually built something with good power/weight, good fuel economy, AND it doesn't need to be rebuilt every 20k miles then we're really on to something.

[StottyZr]

robinessex said:

When you rememeber that in the F1 turbo era, 1500cc engines were reputed to output circa 1500bhp, looks as if this engine trend is only scratching the surface.

There is a list of reasons why this isn't near as impressive as you think it is. A key one being what fuel they used.

[Akayfortyseven]

Think the problem with these (and a lot of other turbo'd run of the mill motors for the masses) will be the turbos dying because of the engines being ragged and suddenly switched off when the destination is reached without time to cool down or anything.

Then the warrantly claims start and the reputation is tarnished.

Personally I think that that much power from a 1.0 with a turbo is asking for trouble, but I apprieciate its the way things are going.

[StottyZr]

Akayfortyseven said:

Think the problem with these (and a lot of other turbo'd run of the mill motors for the masses) will be the turbos dying because of the engines being ragged and suddenly switched off when the destination is reached without time to cool down or anything.

Then the warrantly claims start and the reputation is tarnished.

Personally I think that that much power from a 1.0 with a turbo is asking for trouble, but I apprieciate its the way things are going.

Just to give you an idea what sort of testing these engines go though Ecoboost testing I'd hope the eventuality of ragging the car then suddenly switching the engine off has been covered

[cra1gy1989]

currybum said:

Akayfortyseven said:

Think the problem with these (and a lot of other turbo'd run of the mill motors for the masses) will be the turbos dying because of the engines being ragged and suddenly switched off when the destination is reached without time to cool down or anything.

Then the warrantly claims start and the reputation is tarnished.

Personally I think that that much power from a 1.0 with a turbo is asking for trouble, but I apprieciate its the way things are going.

Don’t you think that this potential failure mode has been analysed, researched, designed around and thoroughly tested before going in to mass production.

There has been some progress since the specialist, high performance turbo vehicles of the 80’s and 90’s.

Turbo timer hehe...

[loudlashadjuster]

Akayfortyseven said:

Think the problem with these (and a lot of other turbo'd run of the mill motors for the masses) will be the turbos dying because of the engines being ragged and suddenly switched off when the destination is reached without time to cool down or anything.

Then the warrantly claims start and the reputation is tarnished.

Personally I think that that much power from a 1.0 with a turbo is asking for trouble, but I apprieciate its the way things are going.

From the last thread on these engines, but repeated here because I think it bears repeating on page 1 of any such thread:

LoudLashAdjuster already said:

1) This 'Imma cooling the turbo, Yo!' is all a bit of a myth perpetuated by Scooby and Evo owners who liked to think of themselves as a bit of a McRae/Mäkinen (disclaimer: I was one of those tts )

2) The actual scenarios needed to cause the kind of problem that we are always told would befall our precious turbos are actually pretty extreme, and as you say there was sufficient publicity around this in enthusiast circles to make it almost a non-issue (the only cases I saw in over 10 years of Evo ownership/MLR involvement were folk that really didn't know any better. Borderline idiots, basically.)

3) Of course, Tom, Dick, Harry, Sally and Patty don't actually drive like that anyway, with sufficient latent cooling being designed into the engines to account for normal use, ergo it's not really a concern

I'd also say that any of the first generations of higher output VAG/PSA/BMW diesels weren't exactly enthusiast targets, propelling as they did rep mobiles and runabouts, yet I don't see any huge issues with these engines relating to unreliability due general stress after 15+ years.

I do however recall similar talk at the time of of "70hp/litre from a diesel?! It's all witchcraft and voodoo, you know! There's no way engines can produce that much power without breaking!". I sometimes don't think we give manufacturers enough credit

[paulvillage]

I’m a fan V8, V10, V12 etc. but a triple also sounds awesome check out the link below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4A7WkEqmwI

That’s the 260 BHP 990cc Cosworth built triple in the Aprilla cube unbelievable sound and power!!

[A Scotsman]

Someone in the previous thread on this topic mentioned the old Suzuki Cappuccino as the model for a 3 pot, twin ohc, 12 v, turbo charged engine.

I had one of these and it was a joy to drive although given it was designed for 5ft Japanese drivers rather than 6ft, 14 stone Scots it was a pain (literally) to get in and out of.

So if any design team is out there thinking that a GRP shelled (the Cappos would turn to rust if the weather forecast was for rain) small sports car with a sensible hood or solid roof and with this engine might have a market then they're right. I bet it would sell like hot cakes.

The price however must be right.... That means Cappuccino and not Caterham money...

Edited by A Scotsman on Thursday 6th September 10:28

[Akayfortyseven]

Well, sounds good then! Always been led to believe that its bad to just switch off a turbo engine if its been working hard.

[vdubbin]

The ecoboost weighs less than 100 kg, I reckon it'd fit anywhere. You'd nearly squeeze two in to a Locaterfield chassis…

[therealpigdog]

A Scotsman said:

Someone in the previous thread on this topic mentioned the old Suzuki Cappuccino as the model for a 3 pot, twin ohc, 12 v, turbo charged engine.

I had one of these and it was a joy to drive although given it was designed for 5ft Japanese drivers rather than 6ft, 14 stone Scots it was a pain (literally) to get in and out of.

So if any design team is out there thinking that a GRP shelled (the Cappos would turn to rust if the weather forecast was for rain) small sports car with a sensible hood or solid roof and with this engine might have a market then they're right. I bet it would sell like hot cakes.

Plastic panelled, lightweight, small, convertible, three cylinders, turbo-charged? My old smart roadster was ahead of its time. Shame that Smart couldn't make them reliable (mine was perfect, but many others weren't due to inconsistent build quality) or competitively priced. Best car I ever had. Small, nippy, good-looking, economical, and unusual - needed pop-up headlights though!

[A Scotsman]

therealpigdog said:

Plastic panelled, lightweight, small, convertible, three cylinders, turbo-charged? My old smart roadster was ahead of its time. Shame that Smart couldn't make them reliable (mine was perfect, but many others weren't due to inconsistent build quality) or competitively priced. Best car I ever had. Small, nippy, good-looking, economical, and unusual - needed pop-up headlights though!

Yep.. like the Roadster as well. Your point about "unusual" is right.. Because all the badges had fallen off my Cappo if you didn't know what it was you couldn't tell. As a consequence all the local kids thought it was a baby Porsche

[therealpigdog]

A Scotsman said:

Yep.. like the Roadster as well. Your point about "unusual" is right.. Because all the badges had fallen off my Cappo if you didn't know what it was you couldn't tell. As a consequence all the local kids thought it was a baby Porsche

I debadged my Smart as soon as I got it, and most people didn't have a clue what it was (I got mine just after they came out, so there were even less on the road). Quite a few people thought it was a baby TVR. The look on their faces when they asked what engine it had, and I replied "1.2 pints".

[Ed.]

1l turbo 3 sounds good, 2l twin turbo 6 or 2.7l twin turbo 8 sounds better

[Captain Muppet]

Akayfortyseven said:

Well, sounds good then! Always been led to believe that its bad to just switch off a turbo engine if its been working hard.

I can't think of any circumstance other than a crash where I would be using full throttle just before turning the engine off. Even at track days it'll have at least 30 seconds cooling off while you roll down the pit lane.

[turboslippers]

A few years ago all the Ford powertrain durability tests were reworked inline with real world data gained from looking at 95th percentile customer usage and what they could achieve in terms of abuse. One scenario that hadn't been considered before was the case of a vehicle being piloted at wide open throttle and/or high speeds on the Autobahn (or elsewhere for that matter) and then pulled into a petrol station i.e the engine could be shut off with the turbo/engine/oil still at upper end of it's working temperature range. As such, I'm pretty sure this was incorporated into at least one of the main powertrain durability cycles to ensure it was robust against this usage.
As technology moves forward so does the testing. A good example of this would the stop/start systems I am system validation engineer for (this engine being one of them). With the advent of stop/start there are new usage scenarios that didn't occur before and, as such, were not signed off against. With your stop/start enabled car you now have the scenario where wide open throttle is engaged immediately after an engine start e.g pulling away from traffic lights. The concern from the turbo manufacturer, for example, was that you might not have sufficient oil pressure by the time the turbo was being spooled up to achieve maximum boost. As such data was correleated showing how many times the most agressive driver in worst case usage might do this maneouver and then an engine was tested at varying range of temps (cold oil worst for travelling from sump to turbo/warm oil worst for bearing film thickness) to see if this cycle showed any significan extra wear.
So, yup, your average manufacturer does try to protect against most possible scenarios within the durability sign off. And the 'Fox' 1.0 was subject to the same sign off criteria as any other current powertrain

regards
Ben

[Skylinecrazy]

That looks seriously awesome! Never been a fan of FF cars in the past. But like that.

[Wammer]

I have a Smart fortwo cabrio with the engine from the Roadster developing around 150bhp per litre. I reckon the new Smart cars should have this engine in them and not the Gutless piece of Mitsubushi st. The cars could be stupidly quick as they weigh under a ton.

I have also spoken to people in Smart and they say that a new Roadster is on the cards in the next couple of years.