RE: PH Blog: It's time to focus on the triple
Discussion
Hmm Agree.
As a fleet manager - we have many different engine sizes and anything 1.0 and 3 cylinder isnt that economical in the real world, compared to diesels. Even the Toyota IQ lags about 15mpg behind a 1.4 diesel Yaris... My 2004 V70 D5 is a lot more economical than an IQ in the real world but still costs £215 to tax!
As a fleet manager - we have many different engine sizes and anything 1.0 and 3 cylinder isnt that economical in the real world, compared to diesels. Even the Toyota IQ lags about 15mpg behind a 1.4 diesel Yaris... My 2004 V70 D5 is a lot more economical than an IQ in the real world but still costs £215 to tax!
In terms of power delivery, smoothness and pretty much everything else I really do prefer the 1.2/1.4 TSI-engined Golf to any older 1.6/1.8 efforts. The economy is much better too.
I presume this Ford is the same but haven'tbeen given one to wreck had one as a hire car yet.
We need to stop getting ourselves hung up on cubes and just accept that - gasp! - cars in future will have smaller engines that we are used to them having. Who cares if the power is nominally the same/better?
In fact, a boosted three cylinder is almost always going to be more charismatic than a wheezy old 1.6 lump, we should be celebrating their demise as Riggers says.
I presume this Ford is the same but haven't
We need to stop getting ourselves hung up on cubes and just accept that - gasp! - cars in future will have smaller engines that we are used to them having. Who cares if the power is nominally the same/better?
In fact, a boosted three cylinder is almost always going to be more charismatic than a wheezy old 1.6 lump, we should be celebrating their demise as Riggers says.
Engine power is gained by burning fuel, there has been no real advance in the % of energy extracted from that fuel. We are still looking at best at 25% energy transfered to forward motion, it doesn't matter if that's from a naturally aspirated or forced induction motor.
The benefit of forced induction engines is when driven under part load, the turbo or supercharger allows you to map the basic engine fueling strategy for economy instead of power below 2500 rpm.
I'm all in favour of this sort of flexibility, high mpg when you want to dawdle about, if you know how to get it and good performance when you give it the beans.
The benefit of forced induction engines is when driven under part load, the turbo or supercharger allows you to map the basic engine fueling strategy for economy instead of power below 2500 rpm.
I'm all in favour of this sort of flexibility, high mpg when you want to dawdle about, if you know how to get it and good performance when you give it the beans.
Switch said:
As soon as these are available Crate style I'll be shoe horning one into a project I've got lined up...
I'm not sure you'll need that shoehorn, unless the project is a scooter.According to the original press release, the engine block has a footprint the same size as a sheet of A4 paper.
I imagine that if you run it in a kit car with some sort of standalone ecu, you'll be able to tweak the map and see 150-160bhp, which is 2.0 4 pot territory.
The only downside is that ford didn't use alloy for the block, it's steel, so it's not THAT light
Robmarriott said:
I'm not sure you'll need that shoehorn, unless the project is a scooter.
According to the original press release, the engine block has a footprint the same size as a sheet of A4 paper.
I imagine that if you run it in a kit car with some sort of standalone ecu, you'll be able to tweak the map and see 150-160bhp, which is 2.0 4 pot territory.
The only downside is that ford didn't use alloy for the block, it's steel, so it's not THAT light
That'd be perfect in an old school mini, wonder what the dimensions are?According to the original press release, the engine block has a footprint the same size as a sheet of A4 paper.
I imagine that if you run it in a kit car with some sort of standalone ecu, you'll be able to tweak the map and see 150-160bhp, which is 2.0 4 pot territory.
The only downside is that ford didn't use alloy for the block, it's steel, so it's not THAT light
These are fantastic engines, only downside for using them in something kti car sort is that they're relatively tall, and the ECU etc. needed to work with them is pretty expensive.
We've put a 4 cylinder 2.0L Ecoboost into our V2 (www.vortex-auto.com) and it is a fantastic engine, but as it's direct injection it uses piezo injectors, hence the ECU is pretty complex and expensive.
I don't believe Ford have released the crate price for this yet, but if the 2.0L is anything to go by it won't be cheap, so where as a Zetec and ECU etc.. might cost you something like £2k, an Ecoboost is closer to £7k.
We've put a 4 cylinder 2.0L Ecoboost into our V2 (www.vortex-auto.com) and it is a fantastic engine, but as it's direct injection it uses piezo injectors, hence the ECU is pretty complex and expensive.
I don't believe Ford have released the crate price for this yet, but if the 2.0L is anything to go by it won't be cheap, so where as a Zetec and ECU etc.. might cost you something like £2k, an Ecoboost is closer to £7k.
Nors said:
I do get the point of this article (some appear not to)and it is a more exciting prospect / alternative to Diesels.
I'm thinking 125bhp in a Fiesta with a remap (to say 160ish bhp) and similar levels of economy could be very interesting!
TOTALLY agree. I used to dread the day I found myself taxed, fined, policed and generally manhandled into a small soot chucker - and wa hey! I will never have to! And I get a triple to boot. I just love the concept.I'm thinking 125bhp in a Fiesta with a remap (to say 160ish bhp) and similar levels of economy could be very interesting!
I've got a few decades of motoring left in me and if this is the future - I'm in.
I have had one of these for around 6 weeks now and have covered around 1600 miles . Mine is the 125hp version.
It drives great and it is truelly hard to believe that there is a little 1 litre engine under that bonnet.
In terms of mpg figures its not as great as expected. I do a mixture of motorway and city driving with, I think, a pretty even amount of each. I don't drive the car in economy mode and I admit that if I were a little less eager with the right foot I could no doubt get more from the car.
Currently my average MPG shown on the dash is 38.2
Stu
It drives great and it is truelly hard to believe that there is a little 1 litre engine under that bonnet.
In terms of mpg figures its not as great as expected. I do a mixture of motorway and city driving with, I think, a pretty even amount of each. I don't drive the car in economy mode and I admit that if I were a little less eager with the right foot I could no doubt get more from the car.
Currently my average MPG shown on the dash is 38.2
Stu
I find this quite interesting actually.
I refer to the reference that it 'is economical because it's a 1.0.'
Because it has only 3 cylinders, those cylinders will need to be bigger to attain the 1 litre status. More surface area, means you can fit more fuel in it to achieve reasonable power.
Is there a trade-off in size of piston vs. number of pistons between this 1.0 and the 1.6 engines that have gone before... I'm not an expert/knowledgeable enough.
Essentially, just because it is a 1 litre doesn't implicitly make it more fuel efficient, its all the other gubbins that support those 3 cylinders that will determine that.
You also get a break in efficiency due to reduced friction of internal componentry... is this negligable? I don't know.
I don't really know what my point is here... just that it's interesting.
I refer to the reference that it 'is economical because it's a 1.0.'
Because it has only 3 cylinders, those cylinders will need to be bigger to attain the 1 litre status. More surface area, means you can fit more fuel in it to achieve reasonable power.
Is there a trade-off in size of piston vs. number of pistons between this 1.0 and the 1.6 engines that have gone before... I'm not an expert/knowledgeable enough.
Essentially, just because it is a 1 litre doesn't implicitly make it more fuel efficient, its all the other gubbins that support those 3 cylinders that will determine that.
You also get a break in efficiency due to reduced friction of internal componentry... is this negligable? I don't know.
I don't really know what my point is here... just that it's interesting.
DiscoStu said:
I have had one of these for around 6 weeks now and have covered around 1600 miles . Mine is the 125hp version.
It drives great and it is truelly hard to believe that there is a little 1 litre engine under that bonnet.
In terms of mpg figures its not as great as expected. I do a mixture of motorway and city driving with, I think, a pretty even amount of each. I don't drive the car in economy mode and I admit that if I were a little less eager with the right foot I could no doubt get more from the car.
Currently my average MPG shown on the dash is 38.2
Stu
By contrast, my 125hp 1.6 VCT-i (the old NA block this 3-pot is replacing) is reporting 40 MPG currently (assuming imperial gallons here, it reads 6.9 l/100km), and i'm not light-footed either. I do a fair bit of motorway cruising, but some of that is at 85 mph, which is above average in terms of petrol-slurping.It drives great and it is truelly hard to believe that there is a little 1 litre engine under that bonnet.
In terms of mpg figures its not as great as expected. I do a mixture of motorway and city driving with, I think, a pretty even amount of each. I don't drive the car in economy mode and I admit that if I were a little less eager with the right foot I could no doubt get more from the car.
Currently my average MPG shown on the dash is 38.2
Stu
I'm very much willing to accept that this 3-pot is an interesting engine, but i'm calling BS on the supposed fuel economy. My experience with two Alfa mito's (155hp and 135hp 1.4T)was that you COULD drive them very frugally, doing 50mph in sixth and no acceleration, but as soon as you hit the turbo, a vortex the size of which a 3.0 V6 would be proud off appears in the fuel tank.
It'll be interesting to see the life-span of these engines though, the 125hp 1.0 ecoboost is doing specific engine powers well beyond GTI territory (235hp from 2 litre) and apparently needs some rather special oil, so i wont be taking my chances on a used one in five years.
And yes, this engine needs to be in the fiesta, and the Ka
Fire99 said:
DiscoStu said:
Currently my average MPG shown on the dash is 38.2
Stu
and I'd wager that the accurate figures are a touch less than what is displayed. That puts the car into some tough 'fun' competition.Stu
Anyone heard any news on the new Fiesta ST?
I am just trying to remember the last naturally aspirated four pot I drove (that wasn't installed in a Type-R Honda) that was anything other than bland, lifeless and completely devoid of character. I'd choose this over a yawn-o-matic NA 1.6 any day of the week. If it were more economical, that would just be a bonus.
I'm convinced the reason diesels are so popular now is as much to do with the bland awfulness of most modern 'family car' petrol engines, as it is to do with recent improvements in diesel driving characteristics and outputs.
I'm convinced the reason diesels are so popular now is as much to do with the bland awfulness of most modern 'family car' petrol engines, as it is to do with recent improvements in diesel driving characteristics and outputs.
ajb101 said:
I find this quite interesting actually.
I refer to the reference that it 'is economical because it's a 1.0.'
Because it has only 3 cylinders, those cylinders will need to be bigger to attain the 1 litre status. More surface area, means you can fit more fuel in it to achieve reasonable power.
Is there a trade-off in size of piston vs. number of pistons between this 1.0 and the 1.6 engines that have gone before... I'm not an expert/knowledgeable enough.
Essentially, just because it is a 1 litre doesn't implicitly make it more fuel efficient, its all the other gubbins that support those 3 cylinders that will determine that.
You also get a break in efficiency due to reduced friction of internal componentry... is this negligable? I don't know.
I don't really know what my point is here... just that it's interesting.
These days powertrain engineers are obsessed with friction. I think that's the main reason for lowering the cylinder count, whatever the thermal efficiency effects of the bore x stroke are. Also, the overall surface area (through which heat is lost) will still be lower, even if it's proportionally larger per cylinder.I refer to the reference that it 'is economical because it's a 1.0.'
Because it has only 3 cylinders, those cylinders will need to be bigger to attain the 1 litre status. More surface area, means you can fit more fuel in it to achieve reasonable power.
Is there a trade-off in size of piston vs. number of pistons between this 1.0 and the 1.6 engines that have gone before... I'm not an expert/knowledgeable enough.
Essentially, just because it is a 1 litre doesn't implicitly make it more fuel efficient, its all the other gubbins that support those 3 cylinders that will determine that.
You also get a break in efficiency due to reduced friction of internal componentry... is this negligable? I don't know.
I don't really know what my point is here... just that it's interesting.
Good comparison Vitorio.
One of the attractions for me is that I have it as a company car. So I have a decent size family car, that looks great (it is the zetec-s model with all the skirts,spoilers,etc) is comfortable and with cheap tax
I am very happy with the car as a whole, just wonder how I actually get to the figures quoted by Ford. If I sit on a motorway in 6th gear at 60mph I can achieve high 50's.... but around town its always low-mid 30's
One of the attractions for me is that I have it as a company car. So I have a decent size family car, that looks great (it is the zetec-s model with all the skirts,spoilers,etc) is comfortable and with cheap tax
I am very happy with the car as a whole, just wonder how I actually get to the figures quoted by Ford. If I sit on a motorway in 6th gear at 60mph I can achieve high 50's.... but around town its always low-mid 30's
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff