RE: Driven: Caterham Ecoboost

[kambites]

SystemParanoia said:

this 1.0 eco boost can be tuned to over 200bhp with just a bigger turbo and a remap.

surely that's cheaper than N/A tuning

Cheaper than bolting a SC onto the 1.6?

Bear in mind the 1.6 is nearly 3 grand cheaper to start with.

[v8will]

Seems like a bit of a lash up, I think we should applaud Ford for doing that, they seem to have real confidence in their Ecoboost range of engines.

[hufggfg]

Ford should definitely be applauded for doing things like this... BUT... I really can't see this engine suiting a Caterham at all...

I have owned a decent(ish) turbo (R26.R), supercharged car (exige s) and now have a Caterham...

The Turbo engine really wouldn't suit the Caterham AT ALL... the throttle response on the R26.R was by far the worst part of the car...

A supercharged engine however... mmmmm....

[SystemParanoia]

Micra DIG-S engine anyone ?

[80085]

Supercharged 1.6 would be my preference.

[framerateuk]

I love turbo engines. The surge I get from flooring the throttle in my Megane gives me a big smile, and makes driving the car effortless because I haven't got to worry about which gear I'm in. I know that the torque will pull me through.

That said, I enjoy the complete opposite with my Caterham! Yes, I can quietly drive around keeping the revs low when I want to. But nothing can beat the lightning fast throttle response you get when you drop a few cogs and floor it! A Caterham isn't about the all out performance, it's about the experience. Without that lightning fast throttle response and the massive roar that goes with it, I feel something would be missing.

I'm looking forward to driving an Ecoboost car, and I'd love it in a road car I'm sure, but I'm not sold on having one in the Caterham. Fair play to Ford for having a go though! But I think I'll stick to my Sigma 1.6 for now at least

[busa turbo]

small cc and turbo no lag is a lot of fun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJxAoYvssfY&li...

[garypotter]

The feeling I am geting from the replies is that the turbo 3 cyclinder will not suit a caterham, so maybe a the wrong car for Ford to use, but what if the 3 cylinder was supercharged!! this would then give the power range and throttle response people crave for in the caterham.(I believe supercharged engines are not as economiboring)

I believe that 3 cylinder super eco engines are the way all manufacturers will go, low power NO GO engines but I am not a fan but appreciate we are running out of the black gold.

It has also been mentioned that the 1000 turbo can get 200hp, but at what costs, the engine is £4500 for a crate engine and then the internals and bigger turbo, my thinking is save £3000 on the 1.6 and turbo that engine surely this will produce more torque and bhp??

[Rudy 111]

SystemParanoia said:

Micra DIG-S engine anyone ?

Excellent idea, to me this seems a rather intersting proposition to shoehorn in a ultralight kit car

[britsportscars]

Captain Muppet said:

clonmult said:

Captain Muppet said:

PHMatt said:

rpms

:sigh:

Revolutions per minutes?

I've seen this a few times of late. Where the frack has it come from?

It was all over the place when I worked in the states, and when I came back it was over here too. Maybe I'm a carrier. Or maybe it's because of the "torques" Clarksonism.

Maybe ignorance is fashionable all of a sudden. Dunno. [/irony]

I hate it when he says "Torques". I can't tell if he's stupid and he doesn't realise or if it's some kind of "in joke".

[ayseven]

My SR20DET has absolutely NO lag, running the standard ECU, and 2.5" piping (pre and post-intercooler). It suits the 7 style car completely, if you don't mind having far more power than you'll ever need on tap at any time.

I think this engine is the best place for it. Bravo Ford and Caterham! It was bound to happen.

[tonkaplonka]

ohtari said:

The three cylinder isn't balanced like a 4 cylinder, so longevity of the block would've been a concern.

If I remember correctly back to my old days studying automotive engineering I can recall something being said about 3 cylinders and 6 cylinders being perfectly balanced, hence why a straight 6 is smooth, with a 4 cylinder needing a bit of work to keep it smooth. Somebody will probably correct me on this, and I'll be pleased if they do.

Anyway, I think it's a cracking idea for an engine and I wish it all the success!!

[Captain Muppet]

britsportscars said:

Captain Muppet said:

clonmult said:

Captain Muppet said:

PHMatt said:

rpms

:sigh:

Revolutions per minutes?

I've seen this a few times of late. Where the frack has it come from?

It was all over the place when I worked in the states, and when I came back it was over here too. Maybe I'm a carrier. Or maybe it's because of the "torques" Clarksonism.

Maybe ignorance is fashionable all of a sudden. Dunno. [/irony]

I hate it when he says "Torques". I can't tell if he's stupid and he doesn't realise or if it's some kind of "in joke".

He isn't stupid. Whether it's an in joke, pandering to an ignorant audience or deliberate to annoy beards is anyone's guess. I suspect it might be all three.

[AER]

ohtari said:

Okay, then consider this. The sigma is many years old, with millions of units produced. All development costs were accounted for yonks ago. Production lines have been honed to near-as perfection, and so they can be produced and sold cheap.

Considering the costs involved in designing, testing and building a new engine line, it's no wonder that initial costs are high. Besides, weren't the costs for crate engines? Why would ford want to sell their new baby for a premium, whilst keeping the costs down on their own cars?

It's more like a function of economies of scale. The sigma engine has more of the same (simple) parts whereas the ecoboost has fewer of the same but more of the different, expensive, fragile parts. Aside from a turbo, intercooler, plumbing and direct injection, I bet it also has a balance shaft, although I'm not 100% sure there.

All this to meet some EU bureaucrat's expectation of how the world should be. Spend a thousand to save a hundred is never good economics...

[kennyrayandersen]

AER said:

It's more like a function of economies of scale. The sigma engine has more of the same (simple) parts whereas the ecoboost has fewer of the same but more of the different, expensive, fragile parts. Aside from a turbo, intercooler, plumbing and direct injection, I bet it also has a balance shaft, although I'm not 100% sure there.

All this to meet some EU bureaucrat's expectation of how the world should be. Spend a thousand to save a hundred is never good economics...

I think there is even more there than that. The right-sized engine is the right-sized engine. When you under-size it [rather than right-size it] to save a bit of fuel, the costs come out somewhere else i.e. more expensive hardware up-front, or shorter life over the long run [since it's working harder over it's life] -- whatever the direction is shouldn't cost more than it's worth. So, I agree it looks as though the decision to go that direction isn't necessarily based on a rational technical or purely economic basis, but one what looks good on a superficial level. That's not to say that technology is a bad thing and that progress shouldn't come, but it should be based not on political whims, but on what makes either overall economic sense or a technical sense.

[TonyRPH]

clonmult said:

Captain Muppet said:

PHMatt said:

rpms

:sigh:

Revolutions per minutes?

I've seen this a few times of late. Where the frack has it come from?

Has anyone noticed that Clarkson has been referring to "horsepowers" on TG recently?

WTF.

ETA: corrected stupid error.

Edited by TonyRPH on Thursday 8th August 11:44

[DeeLtd]

Leamington based DEE-Ltd are doing something very similar with a supercharged version of Toyotas 1.0L 3 cylinder engine - which is 30kgs lighter than the Ford Ecoboost, and cheaper.