RE: PH Blog: It's time to focus on the triple
Discussion
Wattsie said:
Mr E said:
C.A.R. said:
That engine would make a lot of sense in the Fiesta, no?
Or a fiesta with a more interesting body and a bit of flair. They could name it after some sort of feline, or even as sportswear brand.Sorry mate, but they both sound rubbish.
The MPG discussion reminds of a comment someone made in a thread recently - engine efficiency has pretty much been reached bar a couple of extra % to be squeezed out. The biggest gains to be realised are from aerodynamic changes and lighter vehicles. My view would be that the fuel returns haven't improved much over the last 5-10 years regardless of what manufacturers marketing teams get up to i.e the Fiat Twin Air and this lump. My take would be these are real world / best combined figures or most capacity engines
Diesel
0.5-1 litre = 60 mpg
1-1.6 litre = 50-55 mpg
2 litre = 50 mpg
3 litre = 40 mpg
Petrol
0.5-1 litre = 50 mpg
1-1.6 litre = 45 mpg
2 litre = 40 mpg
3 litre = 30 mpg
1.6 litre engines in most car reviews has always been poor for economy. Not great for city driving or for loaded motorway driving. Glad to see the back of them. Interestingly the 1.6 diesel capacity has seen heavy development from BMW as an alternative to 2 ltr cars.
Diesel
0.5-1 litre = 60 mpg
1-1.6 litre = 50-55 mpg
2 litre = 50 mpg
3 litre = 40 mpg
Petrol
0.5-1 litre = 50 mpg
1-1.6 litre = 45 mpg
2 litre = 40 mpg
3 litre = 30 mpg
1.6 litre engines in most car reviews has always been poor for economy. Not great for city driving or for loaded motorway driving. Glad to see the back of them. Interestingly the 1.6 diesel capacity has seen heavy development from BMW as an alternative to 2 ltr cars.
Greg 172 said:
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?
That's my experience.With an NA 1.6 you need to rev its invariably grotty little neck to make decent progress, as all the (limited) shove is in the upper reaches of the rev range. This leads to poor MPG if you are in anyway concerned with making progress.
With the smaller FI engines, you can call on the slug of torque from low down when you need it, but providing you can avoid the temptation to go full boost everywhere (like any FI car) then you'll not only be rewarded with much more relaxed transport, but the MPG will be better aswell.
As I say, this is what I've found from years of hacking up and down the country in all manner of cooking rental boxes. I can take a 1.6 Astra or whatever to Bristol and back and get ~32MPG. Give me a diesel and I'll get 45+MPG, but one of these new generation of smaller petrols will see me getting high 30s/low 40s.
Although I don't pay for the fuel, that to me is a worthwhile compromise when I can at least avoid the smelly stuff at the pumps!
And to all those who claim that these engines will be unreliable; do you really think manufacturers would be going down this route now if it weren't viable financially? High output turbocharged cars are not exactly uncommon now, having been around now for over 20 years.
And who's to say that 'normal' engines don't suffer from endemic or stress failure patterns? <cough>VANOS<cough>nikasil liners<cough>dual mass flywheel<cough>IMS failure<cough> etc.
[quote=loudlashadjusterAnd to all those who claim that these engines will be unreliable; do you really think manufacturers would be going down this route now if it weren't viable financially? High output turbocharged cars are not exactly uncommon now, having been around now for over 20 years.
And who's to say that 'normal' engines don't suffer from endemic or stress failure patterns? <cough>VANOS<cough>nikasil liners<cough>dual mass flywheel<cough>IMS failure<cough> etc.
[/quote]
I'd also aegue that generally the kind of buyer choosing a 1.6 in something of a Focus size isn't going to be doing mega-miles. They want the mid range model to get the to their nearby place of work and for going to the shops. Chances are that it won't get to 100,000 miles till 10 years down the line.
And who's to say that 'normal' engines don't suffer from endemic or stress failure patterns? <cough>VANOS<cough>nikasil liners<cough>dual mass flywheel<cough>IMS failure<cough> etc.
[/quote]
I'd also aegue that generally the kind of buyer choosing a 1.6 in something of a Focus size isn't going to be doing mega-miles. They want the mid range model to get the to their nearby place of work and for going to the shops. Chances are that it won't get to 100,000 miles till 10 years down the line.
loudlashadjuster said:
And to all those who claim that these engines will be unreliable; do you really think manufacturers would be going down this route now if it weren't viable financially? High output turbocharged cars are not exactly uncommon now, having been around now for over 20 years.
And who's to say that 'normal' engines don't suffer from endemic or stress failure patterns? <cough>VANOS<cough>nikasil liners<cough>dual mass flywheel<cough>IMS failure<cough> etc.
High output turbo cars have been around for ages, but traditionally are bought by people who know more about how to treat those things, now every tom, dick, harry, sally and patty is driving something with a turbo, but do they all know to let it cool down before shutting it off after a spirited drive?And who's to say that 'normal' engines don't suffer from endemic or stress failure patterns? <cough>VANOS<cough>nikasil liners<cough>dual mass flywheel<cough>IMS failure<cough> etc.
As for financial viability, as long as the engines lasts the warantee term, the manufacturer only has to worry about production cost, if it does 10 years down the road instead of 15, that just means more new car sales.
Riggers said:
Mr E said:
Ford Panther. Half the time, works every time.
Sounds just like my Ford Panther, that does (not wishing to tempt fate)
Vitorio said:
High output turbo cars have been around for ages, but traditionally are bought by people who know more about how to treat those things, now every tom, dick, harry, sally and patty is driving something with a turbo, but do they all know to let it cool down before shutting it off after a spirited drive?
No, but there are a few things at work here: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 t
ts )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
Edited by loudlashadjuster on Thursday 5th July 16:17
Vitorio said:
High output turbo cars have been around for ages, but traditionally are bought by people who know more about how to treat those things, now every tom, dick, harry, sally and patty is driving something with a turbo, but do they all know to let it cool down before shutting it off after a spirited drive?
They don't have to. Modern turbos continue to cool after the engine is switched off, sort of like a turbo timer. They've come a long way since the turbo cars of the 80s!!muthaducka said:
The MPG discussion reminds of a comment someone made in a thread recently - engine efficiency has pretty much been reached bar a couple of extra % to be squeezed out. The biggest gains to be realised are from aerodynamic changes and lighter vehicles. My view would be that the fuel returns haven't improved much over the last 5-10 years regardless of what manufacturers marketing teams get up to i.e the Fiat Twin Air and this lump.
It's not the manufacturers that determine the fuel economy figures - it's a standardised test. They've become very good at gaming it though, because the test isn't really that representative of normal driving. You'll usually find that most turbo cars will be off boost for pretty much all of the test, which is how they achieve the numbers. St John Smythe said:
Vitorio said:
High output turbo cars have been around for ages, but traditionally are bought by people who know more about how to treat those things, now every tom, dick, harry, sally and patty is driving something with a turbo, but do they all know to let it cool down before shutting it off after a spirited drive?
They don't have to. Modern turbos continue to cool after the engine is switched off, sort of like a turbo timer. They've come a long way since the turbo cars of the 80s!!Engine sounds great to me, love the character of a three pot & 100-125bhp would be more than enough power if they would take the bold (?) step of making cars a bit smaller with every generation. Advertising up until now always focus's (no pun intended) on 'more rear leg room' & a few litres more boot space etc etc.... boring! Focus on smaller = lighter = more efficient= cheaper to run, people will relate to that in these bleak times... & obviously this improves the power/weight ratio (shhh, daren't mention that) & while I'm rambling: Offer a proper basic spec model without any pointless equipment on the car (like the basic spec Dacia Duster in a recent Pistonhead article) reducing weight further still, if you want to be surrounded by pointless tech, a higher spec model can be specified.
At a recent classic car show, I was suprised by the space on offer in 1960s cars considering their diminutive external dimensions, I suspect because of a lack of anything unnecessary (or safety equipment/crumple zones too-I'll have to give a little there I guess) Stick in a couple of Airbags, and an ABS pump & Bobs yer uncle All of a sudden the 1.0T ACTUALLY IS an ecconomical flying machine.
Appologies for straying a little from topic, but it was all about helping the new Gen engines achieve their goal...sort of
Edited because I missed an 'e' out of engines & my ocd kicked in....
At a recent classic car show, I was suprised by the space on offer in 1960s cars considering their diminutive external dimensions, I suspect because of a lack of anything unnecessary (or safety equipment/crumple zones too-I'll have to give a little there I guess) Stick in a couple of Airbags, and an ABS pump & Bobs yer uncle All of a sudden the 1.0T ACTUALLY IS an ecconomical flying machine.
Appologies for straying a little from topic, but it was all about helping the new Gen engines achieve their goal...sort of
Edited because I missed an 'e' out of engines & my ocd kicked in....
Edited by marc2 on Thursday 5th July 16:59
Bloitus said:
whats the torque figure on the 100 or 125 1.0 ecoboost? cant see it in either article and i'm too lazy to google it
It makes 125 foot pound or 170 newton metres!The Ecoboost tested in Auto express did 43.5 MPG on test. If that seems poor, its not really, the Audi A1 TDI 1.6 they tested only managed 39.8.
I love this new ecoboost. Its a shot in the arm for petrol heads who dont want to run diesel. I would seriously consider one in the estate. Its quick enough for a daily hack and seems to be fun too! I had a Mk1 1.6 Focus for a year and it was a great drive. Very nimble and you had to really extract the performance, rather than just thump your foot to the floor in a high gear as you do in a diesel.
As a Smart Roadster driver, I have a soft spot for a turbocharged three-pot I really do think Smart were on to something back then - small petrol FI engine and keeping the weight to a minimum is the way forward.
Three-pots have a nice burble as well, and the whooooosh-chirp as you go up the gears is addictive. Hopefully they stick this engine into something a bit smaller/lighter as well.
As for reliability, Ford have been pretty good in this department over the years and people have been happy to stick their engines into all sorts of other cars since the Kent/CVH days. I can't imagine them dropping the ball here.
As a comparison on specific output:
Smart Roadster: 114 bhp/litre
Brabus Roadster: 144 bhp/litre
Given that engine technology has probably moved on a bit in the last 10 years, the Ford 1.0 specific output is nothing outrageous. I would expect tuners to squeeze a fair bit more out of them - 150bhp should be easily achievable.
I really do think Smart were on to something back then - small petrol FI engine and keeping the weight to a minimum is the way forward. Three-pots have a nice burble as well, and the whooooosh-chirp as you go up the gears is addictive. Hopefully they stick this engine into something a bit smaller/lighter as well.
As for reliability, Ford have been pretty good in this department over the years and people have been happy to stick their engines into all sorts of other cars since the Kent/CVH days. I can't imagine them dropping the ball here.
As a comparison on specific output:
Smart Roadster: 114 bhp/litre
Brabus Roadster: 144 bhp/litre
Given that engine technology has probably moved on a bit in the last 10 years, the Ford 1.0 specific output is nothing outrageous. I would expect tuners to squeeze a fair bit more out of them - 150bhp should be easily achievable.
It's a cool little engine, I've driven one for an hour or two.
But..and it's a big butt - like J-Lo, the economy is not achievable if you use the performance. Seems to be a small-displacement issue, like Fiat's twin-air. The economy ranges from amazing - unlikely test conditions, to pretty piss-poor - real world acceleration and general use. There's rumours of a 177hp version too.
But..and it's a big butt - like J-Lo, the economy is not achievable if you use the performance. Seems to be a small-displacement issue, like Fiat's twin-air. The economy ranges from amazing - unlikely test conditions, to pretty piss-poor - real world acceleration and general use. There's rumours of a 177hp version too.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff