RE: Driven: Superchips tuned Ford Focus Ecoboost
Discussion
richardaucock said:
MarkRSi said:
I'm surprised by this - A brand new Ford Transit minibus I drove last year would raise the idle to 1100-1200rpm when 1st gear was engaged with clutch down, it made pulling away without any throttle easy and smooth. I thought it was a great feature.
... unless you need 2000+ revs to get it going? That can't be good for the clutch shirely?
I noticed a few years back the Vauxhall Corsa does this too (apologies for outbound link to tongue-in-cheek blog: http://www.richardaucock.com/why-bsm-pass-rate-may... ). F30 320d also does it, subtly. OE anti-stall: good or bad thing? ... unless you need 2000+ revs to get it going? That can't be good for the clutch shirely?
Edited by richardaucock on Saturday 4th August 06:29
Edited by KM666 on Saturday 4th August 23:44
Edited by KM666 on Saturday 4th August 23:46
I see no reason why this engine won't make over 200hp when tinkered with appropriately. People have been tuning the aforementioned daihatsu 3 pots to 200hp and beyond for years now.
Mine had 160hp when I sold it.
This one makes 245hp. On stock internals.
http://www.fusion-motorsport.co.uk/customer-cars/7...
Mine had 160hp when I sold it.
This one makes 245hp. On stock internals.
http://www.fusion-motorsport.co.uk/customer-cars/7...
Edited by Marf on Saturday 4th August 23:52
Sivraj said:
Don't fall for it!...
It’s just an attempt by the state to get us out of our big engine barges and into little eco friendly hatch backs!.....
Before we know it everybody will have a 600cc super charged, turbo charged hatch back
Well, I think it'd be a nice little companion to a proper sports car.It’s just an attempt by the state to get us out of our big engine barges and into little eco friendly hatch backs!.....
Before we know it everybody will have a 600cc super charged, turbo charged hatch back
Marf said:
I see no reason why this engine won't make over 200hp when tinkered with appropriately. People have been tuning the aforementioned daihatsu 3 pots to 200hp and beyond for years now.
Mine had 160hp when I sold it.
This one makes 245hp. On stock internals.
http://www.fusion-motorsport.co.uk/customer-cars/7...
That looks incredible. Stock internals! Amazing.Mine had 160hp when I sold it.
This one makes 245hp. On stock internals.
http://www.fusion-motorsport.co.uk/customer-cars/7...
Edited by Marf on Saturday 4th August 23:52
The GTti was homologated to go rallying. As such the engine is pretty much indestructible. So long as the mapping is right, they'll take however much boost you can throw at them!
The weakpoint is the standard gearbox which will give up way way way before the engine cries enough.
The weakpoint is the standard gearbox which will give up way way way before the engine cries enough.
Edited by Marf on Sunday 5th August 16:33
richardaucock said:
iain1970 said:
Stick this in a Ka.
Given the Fiat deal, I was wondering if they'll do a TwinAir Ka at some point...Who cares?
Its more ham-fisted engineering dressed up as "eco".
Whats the point of stuffing a small engine into the same obese vehicle a large engine cannot propel efficiently?
To ensure it performs as badly as the rest of the Ford range of vehicles? (ie, Returns half the MPG it COULD and would benefit greatly from having a lightweight chassis)
If Ford put this small engine in a small lightweight vehicle this project might become slightly interesting but when its stuck in a current Ford (read fat s
t-box), one thats well over the tonne mark, why not put fatty on a diet instead and do something remarkable?
Its more ham-fisted engineering dressed up as "eco".
Whats the point of stuffing a small engine into the same obese vehicle a large engine cannot propel efficiently?
To ensure it performs as badly as the rest of the Ford range of vehicles? (ie, Returns half the MPG it COULD and would benefit greatly from having a lightweight chassis)
If Ford put this small engine in a small lightweight vehicle this project might become slightly interesting but when its stuck in a current Ford (read fat s
t-box), one thats well over the tonne mark, why not put fatty on a diet instead and do something remarkable?I agree with a few of you guys that this is good marketing for the trend of smaller engines. On the tuning side though, it makes you wonder how much red tape and compliance a manufacture has to go through to significantly under-tune cars.
Always been a fan of re-mapping oil burners and always returned better Mpg as well as power. Currently though focus ST with Dreamscience re-map = Loads of power, not quite the fuel return
Always been a fan of re-mapping oil burners and always returned better Mpg as well as power. Currently though focus ST with Dreamscience re-map = Loads of power, not quite the fuel return
richardaucock said:
However, would OEMs benchtest engines using such a driving style to assess longevity? And could the delay in ultra-green petrol engines that are now rolling out be down to firms waiting for fuel quality to improve? Think how petrol motors are only now playing catchup with super-eco diesels of recent years - where, presumably, these issues don't apply.
Firstly, like with the extreme bore x stroke dimensions of engines in the 1920s and '30s designed to get the 'best' out of the RAC hp formula that was used as the base for the fiscal regime on motor vehicles, engineers would have never designed and built engines 'downsized' in this way if it weren't for the NEDC and the CO2 emissions ratings derived from it being absolutely crucial for a manufacturer's competitiveness and financial wellbeing. So far, the real-world economy figures of the most radically downsized engine (eg Fiat Twin Air) haven't been anything much to write home about. Current design practice still requires lambda values to drop to .85 or .80 for much of the 'boosted' part of the load/rpm map for cooling; the exceedingly gentle acceleration levels and low average speeds required by NEDC means that even a very small engine in a relatively big/heavy car won't need to be in that range very much during the test, where OTOH it will be pretty much standard in the cut and thrust of 'real' traffic or to maintain open road cruising speeds with crosswinds or up an incline, air con blowing, more than 1 passenger et cetera.I am am convinced that if the EU weren't breathing down their necks, engine developers would have taken a more considered path towards 'downsizing' taking more account of real-life operating conditions, servicing and tolerance to adverse conditions etc.
There's nowt much engineers can do about Euro 5/6 emissions standards, either - comply or die. As higher compression ratios and having several very quick, subsequent high pressure injection of fuel directly into the combustion chamber aren't exactly contributory to low NOx and particles emissions, ever higher EGR rates (and probably at some point, particle filters for petrol engines, too) are the order of the day - promoting build up of carbon deposits, to which the downsized engine with its precision fuel metering and low oil/coolant flows is much less tolerant than engines of old.
There's another reason the development of extreme downsizing concepts for petrol engines has gathered pace at such an astonishing rate: the aftertreatment devices needed to bring diesel engines' emissions down to EU6 standard are relatively expensive, which will impact diesel engine sales in the bread-and-butter segments, espcially now the centre of gravity in the market is being pushed firmly towards the A-, B- and entry-level C-segment cars in most European markets. Which in turn means manufacturers can't rely on diesels to bring down their average CO2 emissions as much as they have done in the past.
The current batch of engines didn't come about because it is necessarily the right way, it's because their makers have to. Maybe they'd have preferred to wait until the smaller, high specific output engines were as resilient as the simpler ones replaced by them in the mainstream market, but if economic pressures mean either release the downsized, high technology versions PDQ or become uncompetitive because of higher taxes on registration/fines for non-compliance with EU-mandated fleet average emissions...
Particularly when OEMs know they might incur slightly higher warranty costs but the brunt of the consequences will be firmly placed at the second or third owner - pretty much irrelevant to the OE channel when most cars leave the franchised dealer workshops towards the independent aftermarket between 3-6 years of age...
currybum said:
Pistonwot said:
Who cares?
Its more ham-fisted engineering dressed up as "eco".
Whats the point of stuffing a small engine into the same obese vehicle a large engine cannot propel efficiently?
To ensure it performs as badly as the rest of the Ford range of vehicles? (ie, Returns half the MPG it COULD and would benefit greatly from having a lightweight chassis)
If Ford put this small engine in a small lightweight vehicle this project might become slightly interesting but when its stuck in a current Ford (read fat st-box), one thats well over the tonne mark, why not put fatty on a diet instead and do something remarkable?
Proof that you don’t have to be clever to use the internet.Its more ham-fisted engineering dressed up as "eco".
Whats the point of stuffing a small engine into the same obese vehicle a large engine cannot propel efficiently?
To ensure it performs as badly as the rest of the Ford range of vehicles? (ie, Returns half the MPG it COULD and would benefit greatly from having a lightweight chassis)
If Ford put this small engine in a small lightweight vehicle this project might become slightly interesting but when its stuck in a current Ford (read fat s
t-box), one thats well over the tonne mark, why not put fatty on a diet instead and do something remarkable?As for the superchips claims, I would seriously question the accuracy of the dyno. The base line they have is 4% over standard for the 1.0 engine but way over for the 1.6T engine, they get measure 179hp from the 160hp engine and over 200hp from the 180hp engine. They look to be over calling the baseline (and their numbers) by between 4-11%.
That doesn’t instil confidence that the rest of their work is accurate.
We would have figured it out for ourselves.
Joking aside,,, why issue insult but neglect to address ANY and all points raised?
This IS ham fisted engineering, how is it not?
HOW is it expected this 1l engine will drag fatty around offering equal performance BUT with increased economy when it has to work sooo hard?
HOW will there be lower NVH for the harder working lump?
HOW is it that lump will return better economy as it bounces off the limiter everywhere to acheive moderate speeds?
I did note your "clever" reply has no mention of a 14000 rpm redline so how does it sound on a cruise at 70mph?
f
king screaming and rattling itself to death I suggest,,,, AGAINPistonwot said:
Who cares?
Its more ham-fisted engineering dressed up as "eco".
Whats the point of stuffing a small engine into the same obese vehicle a large engine cannot propel efficiently?
To ensure it performs as badly as the rest of the Ford range of vehicles? (ie, Returns half the MPG it COULD and would benefit greatly from having a lightweight chassis)
If Ford put this small engine in a small lightweight vehicle this project might become slightly interesting but when its stuck in a current Ford (read fat st-box), one thats well over the tonne mark, why not put fatty on a diet instead and do something remarkable?
Spot on - I would say.Its more ham-fisted engineering dressed up as "eco".
Whats the point of stuffing a small engine into the same obese vehicle a large engine cannot propel efficiently?
To ensure it performs as badly as the rest of the Ford range of vehicles? (ie, Returns half the MPG it COULD and would benefit greatly from having a lightweight chassis)
If Ford put this small engine in a small lightweight vehicle this project might become slightly interesting but when its stuck in a current Ford (read fat s
t-box), one thats well over the tonne mark, why not put fatty on a diet instead and do something remarkable?The weight of cars took a turn for the worst many years ago when the UK adopted the European max lorry weight .. up several tonnes from the current limit. After that car safety had to improve but to make them safer you need more steel / alloy.
Most cars size for size seem to have increased by about 400 lbs from the 80's to the present day and it's a mix of safety and electric adjustment of everything although to compensate some panels and other conponents are now plastic.
Sadly - the path back to lightness is a near impossible one as who will sacrifice safety and creature comforts in this day and age ?
Gordon Murray ?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff