RE: PH Blog: It's time to focus on the triple
Discussion
EddyP said:
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.
According to the version of Ecat we can access online, £2748 plus vatWe'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.
It's normally accurate.
VolvoMariner said:
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!
your a fleet manager and you have a 8 year old car? dont you get a company car?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!
My wife has the 125 version of this car and it is indeed excellent.
So far, with 200 miles on the clock and no effort to drive it economically, it has returned 34mpg on average. This has been with town driving so far.
Apparently these engines do not give their best until at least 2000 miles so I anticipate that it will end up near 39-42mpg on average. The driving experience in comparison to a 1.6 N.A. Focus is huge. We have experience of this car as well and it doesn't even compare to the new ecotech which is both more responsive and faster together with the ability to turn in better thanks to the tiny engine up front (and it is tiny). But the most spooky thing of all is how quiet the engine is. With stop start it is almost impossible to know when the engine is on/off, unless you are gunning it (when it growls nicely in a way a 3 cylinder engine does).
And before everyone goes on about the false figures manufacturers put out with regard to mpg- THEY ALL DO IT!
My business partner drives a VAG 2.0tdi and it gets nowhere near the official figures.
I am seriously considering the new Focus ST as that is from the same family of engines and is supposed to be excellent.
So far, with 200 miles on the clock and no effort to drive it economically, it has returned 34mpg on average. This has been with town driving so far.
Apparently these engines do not give their best until at least 2000 miles so I anticipate that it will end up near 39-42mpg on average. The driving experience in comparison to a 1.6 N.A. Focus is huge. We have experience of this car as well and it doesn't even compare to the new ecotech which is both more responsive and faster together with the ability to turn in better thanks to the tiny engine up front (and it is tiny). But the most spooky thing of all is how quiet the engine is. With stop start it is almost impossible to know when the engine is on/off, unless you are gunning it (when it growls nicely in a way a 3 cylinder engine does).
And before everyone goes on about the false figures manufacturers put out with regard to mpg- THEY ALL DO IT!
My business partner drives a VAG 2.0tdi and it gets nowhere near the official figures.
I am seriously considering the new Focus ST as that is from the same family of engines and is supposed to be excellent.
DiscoStu said:
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
Mine is a company car as well, so i dont care about the fuel usage really, i just find it interesting.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
As for the drive, the 125hp 1.6 is enough for a car this size, but if you want to be quick about it, you need to seriously give it some revs, especially since they fitted a long gearbox in order to fudge the economy numbers some more.
Given my previous experiences id probably prefer the ecoboost, as i like low-down torque, but i got my car as one of the first new focus-owners, so i'm stuck with the old 125hp engines. Not exactly punishment mind you.
David1976 said:
And before everyone goes on about the false figures manufacturers put out with regard to mpg- THEY ALL DO IT!
My business partner drives a VAG 2.0tdi and it gets nowhere near the official figures.
It's a shame, as VAG, with their PD diesels, were one of the few manufacturers who did seem to publish realistic official figures. Our old mk4 Golf PD130 never returns less than 50 mpg, against a combined figure of 53. By contrast, my F30 320d EfficientDynamics 68.9 mpg is so ridiculously unattainable, they might as well have claimed it did 100 mpg. If I get 53 mpg average over a tankful, I'm lucky. Even "trying", I've never coaxed it over 55, even though the computer occasionally displays something stupid like 77 mpg over a journey. Lies, and damn lies.My business partner drives a VAG 2.0tdi and it gets nowhere near the official figures.
[quote=David1976]And before everyone goes on about the false figures manufacturers put out with regard to mpg- THEY ALL DO IT!
My business partner drives a VAG 2.0tdi and it gets nowhere near the official figures.
quote]
True, but some engines it's much easier to get close to the official figures - I suspect this engine in a Focus will struggle match it's official. However, if it is getting better real world MPG than the old 1.6 did and gives a better drive (including, I guess, being more tractable) then it's got to be a good thing.
As has been said, once this gets in to the Fiesta I think it will really shine. I just wish the current Ka was nicer so they could produce a fun ST-type city car. Are Renault doing something like this engine? Is their 1.2T an equivelant (I'm thinking next RS Twingo)?
My business partner drives a VAG 2.0tdi and it gets nowhere near the official figures.
quote]
True, but some engines it's much easier to get close to the official figures - I suspect this engine in a Focus will struggle match it's official. However, if it is getting better real world MPG than the old 1.6 did and gives a better drive (including, I guess, being more tractable) then it's got to be a good thing.
As has been said, once this gets in to the Fiesta I think it will really shine. I just wish the current Ka was nicer so they could produce a fun ST-type city car. Are Renault doing something like this engine? Is their 1.2T an equivelant (I'm thinking next RS Twingo)?
Greg 172 said:
True, but some engines it's much easier to get close to the official figures - I suspect this engine in a Focus will struggle match it's official. However, if it is getting better real world MPG than the old 1.6 did and gives a better drive (including, I guess, being more tractable) then it's got to be a good thing.
As has been said, once this gets in to the Fiesta I think it will really shine. I just wish the current Ka was nicer so they could produce a fun ST-type city car. Are Renault doing something like this engine? Is their 1.2T an equivelant (I'm thinking next RS Twingo)?
I'd be willing to bet that attaining the Ford specced MPG is more doable in my 125hp 1.6 N/A focus then in its 1.0 ecoboost succesor, turbo's are just a way of fooling the emissions tests even worse. Someone else posted their ecoboost doing 38.2 MPG, and if my math is correct, my 1.6 VCT is doing roughly 40, so realworld fuel consumption doesnt look much improved.As has been said, once this gets in to the Fiesta I think it will really shine. I just wish the current Ka was nicer so they could produce a fun ST-type city car. Are Renault doing something like this engine? Is their 1.2T an equivelant (I'm thinking next RS Twingo)?
As for renault, they are replacing the 2.0 NA engine in the Clio RS with a 1.6T, so chances of the next Twingo RS getting the 1.2 TCe in some beefed up form seem very good.
Read about this a couple of weeks ago. Reminded me of my Daihatsu Charade GTti's engine. 99bhp from 1 litre, 25 years ago! Unfortunately it only averaged 28-30mpg and 22mpg if I caned it!
I think most of the manufacturers figures can be taken with a pinch of salt and quite a few supposedly high tech, modern, "economical" cars are actually not. We own a 1994 Passat GL which has the 2.0lt 16v ABF engine as found in the Mk3 Golf GTi 16v. It averages 35mpg with a mix of town and motorway driving. Just back from our holiday in Holland and it averaged 40mpg with 2 adults, 3 kids and a bootful of luggage. Hard to do better really given the performance of the car. Only cost £600 for the car too!
I think most of the manufacturers figures can be taken with a pinch of salt and quite a few supposedly high tech, modern, "economical" cars are actually not. We own a 1994 Passat GL which has the 2.0lt 16v ABF engine as found in the Mk3 Golf GTi 16v. It averages 35mpg with a mix of town and motorway driving. Just back from our holiday in Holland and it averaged 40mpg with 2 adults, 3 kids and a bootful of luggage. Hard to do better really given the performance of the car. Only cost £600 for the car too!
tomoleeds said:
VolvoMariner said:
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!
your a fleet manager and you have a 8 year old car? dont you get a company car?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!
1.0l turbo... I wonder how thick pistons and conrods are...
This new fashion of highly stressed turbo minis probably bodes well for garages who will be fixing them and/or replacing engines.
But with cost cutting everywhere somehow I don't think this new fashion will produce reliable engines
This new fashion of highly stressed turbo minis probably bodes well for garages who will be fixing them and/or replacing engines.
But with cost cutting everywhere somehow I don't think this new fashion will produce reliable engines
longblackcoat said:
Drove a 1.4 turbo Scenic in France this weekend. Over the course of a tank of fuel, it averaged 25mpg. OK, that's in the Alps, but my Disco 3 averages 20mpg in the Alps, so not that impressed with small petrol turbos on the economy front.
I think they make so much more sense in a small, light car. You get the advantage of a (relatively) torquey turbo engine, so in the real world you can use a fairly light right foot most of the time. However, you've still got some go if you need it. Am I wrong?Oh, you can safely bet that all the components in an engine developed by a giant OEM for very mainstream applications will be 'lifed' and validated to within an inch of their, er, lives.
What is becoming a problem in downsized, energy-efficiency optimised engines (so no more oil or coolant flowing through it than strictly necessary, and fuel metered very precisely with high pressure through very small orifices) is the margins for error becoming really thin, especially as EGR rates are higher than ever before. So you're passing the amount of exhaust gases previously associated with a 2 litre engine, through a 1.2 litre engine that has the same oil & coolant volumes as the 1.2 engines of old that would power a basic supermini with all of 60 bhp, downsized bearings (less friction), lightweight block & internals with high cylinder pressures, a small, high rpm tubocharger on tiny bearings and a high pressure injection system that doesn't take kindly to contamination of any kind.
A small injector problem (for instance) can erasily lead to a vicious circle of deposit build up, which needs to be correctly diagnosed and rectified rather quickly before major damage potentially occurring, while the old nat-asp, port injection, low-to-middling cylinder pressures, low (if any) EGR rates 2 litre will happily run in suboptimal conditions for another 100,000 miles, just a little less efficiently and environmentally friendly (which wouldn't likely be picked up at MOT time as the engines are allowed far worse emissions for the test than the Euro standard they complied with when new would prescribe).
What is becoming a problem in downsized, energy-efficiency optimised engines (so no more oil or coolant flowing through it than strictly necessary, and fuel metered very precisely with high pressure through very small orifices) is the margins for error becoming really thin, especially as EGR rates are higher than ever before. So you're passing the amount of exhaust gases previously associated with a 2 litre engine, through a 1.2 litre engine that has the same oil & coolant volumes as the 1.2 engines of old that would power a basic supermini with all of 60 bhp, downsized bearings (less friction), lightweight block & internals with high cylinder pressures, a small, high rpm tubocharger on tiny bearings and a high pressure injection system that doesn't take kindly to contamination of any kind.
A small injector problem (for instance) can erasily lead to a vicious circle of deposit build up, which needs to be correctly diagnosed and rectified rather quickly before major damage potentially occurring, while the old nat-asp, port injection, low-to-middling cylinder pressures, low (if any) EGR rates 2 litre will happily run in suboptimal conditions for another 100,000 miles, just a little less efficiently and environmentally friendly (which wouldn't likely be picked up at MOT time as the engines are allowed far worse emissions for the test than the Euro standard they complied with when new would prescribe).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff