1.0 Ecoboost 7esque car

[LukeSi]

Just saw the post about the Ecoboost Caterham and that got my thinking. How well would the 1.0 Ecoboost engine go down in a 7esque car. I imagine if it was producing around 160hp (which I think you can get with a remap) then it would be quite fast due to weighing next to nothing (the heaviest part being lighter than in most of them). I wonder if anyone has or is thinking of using that engine, it has the potential to make a good kit car engine.

[Toltec]

There was an article about a single seat, road legal, car Ford was possibly going to sell which used the 1 litre ecoboost. Iirc they had it at 200bhp plus using a larger turbo.

I'd link the article, but finding it is tricky on a phone interface.

[slomax]

here you go

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...

[fostrike]

BEC engine, 1000 cc, normally aspirated, around 150cv at least and so much lighter.
I can't see the point using this engine.

[Toltec]

fostrike said:

BEC engine, 1000 cc, normally aspirated, around 150cv at least and so much lighter.
I can't see the point using this engine.

A reverse and motorway cruising gear perhaps or just because you want to.

[Woody]

fostrike said:

BEC engine, 1000 cc, normally aspirated, around 150cv at least and so much lighter.
I can't see the point using this engine.

Torque?

[fostrike]

Woody said:

Torque?

Did you read the article?

"I've got an old Caterham - you just want something that revs, not something that wafts along on huge amounts of torque."

Have you ever tried a proper BEC?

[MX7]

fostrike said:

BEC engine, 1000 cc, normally aspirated, around 150cv at least and so much lighter.
I can't see the point using this engine.

Reliability? Durability? Driveability?

There are several reasons why people have different preferences.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...


I think the Ecoboost will become a firm kit builders favourite, along with the Alfa 4C engine.

[Woody]

fostrike said:

Did you read the article?

"I've got an old Caterham - you just want something that revs, not something that wafts along on huge amounts of torque."

Have you ever tried a proper BEC?

Yes I read the article.
But the article quote: "I've got an old Caterham - you just want something that revs, not something that wafts along on huge amounts of torque." Is one persons opinion.
I quite like a torquey engine with nice driveability.

I don't own and have only ever been in a BEC once (a Radial on track), but for what I would use a '7 for I'd prefer a CEC.

If we all liked the same the internet would be a strange place.....

Edited by Woody on Tuesday 23 October 14:18

[fostrike]

Of couse Woody, we can have different opinions
I'm not against CEC in a seven car, I just don't feel this Ecoboost like a good choice.
- Is just 1 liter but heavier than the old 1.6 Sigma???
- Need to be turbocharged or supercharged
- 3 cylinder engine sound really poor (at least in my ex girlfriend Opel Corsa )

@MX7 Right now the engine seems to be the only good part in the 4C Alfa, pre-series car tested in the Balocco circuit have a uge handling problems.

Edited by fostrike on Tuesday 23 October 15:23

[jason61c]

Its the turbo that'll ruin it, large torque spikes, gods engines are N/A for a reason

[PaulKemp]

Horses for courses
There has always been debate over which engine is best
The Ecotech engines are the next evolution however for me the bigger ones look promising

Enzo Ferrari said
BHP sells engines, Torque wins races

[SuperT]

When talking about torque you have to remember that bike engines have a reduction gear b4 the gearbox (typically around 1.5 to 1.6 reduction IIRC) this is simply an additional torque multiplier, so I think you'll find that a bike engine qoted as 100 ftlb torque has the equivalent of 150/160 ftlbs. Smallbike engines are poor, but drive something with a busa zx12 or zx14 lump& youll find more than adequete torque compared to most car engines

[The Black Flash]

PaulKemp said:

Horses for courses
There has always been debate over which engine is best
The Ecotech engines are the next evolution however for me the bigger ones look promising

Enzo Ferrari said
BHP sells engines, Torque wins races

...or was it Caroll Shelby? Whoever, he was wrong

[Huff]

SuperT said:

When talking about torque you have to remember that bike engines have a reduction gear b4 the gearbox (typically around 1.5 to 1.6 reduction IIRC) this is simply an additional torque multiplier, so I think you'll find that a bike engine qoted as 100 ftlb torque has the equivalent of 150/160 ftlbs. Smallbike engines are poor, but drive something with a busa zx12 or zx14 lump& youll find more than adequete torque compared to most car engines

Exactly that, an R1 with 84lbft and 12K+redline 'looks like' a 135lbft, 8000rpm-capable engine to the input of the gearbox.

Torque doesn't matter - only power output and appropriate gearing.

[The Black Flash]

Huff said:

Exactly that, an R1 with 84lbft and 12K+redline 'looks like' a 135lbft, 8000rpm-capable engine to the input of the gearbox.

Torque doesn't matter - only power output and appropriate gearing.

...though it will be harder to drive if you need 7 or 8,000 rpm to pull away of course!

[Huff]

But you don't! In fact wheelspin is on tap from 3K5... but revving a bike engine is totally different from a car. Subjectively running about twice what you expect rpm-wise is perfectly normal to the point of feeling everything else feeling strange. Flywheel inertia of a spinning penny.

(my R1-engined Fury has no problem trundling about at 25mph in 6th then pulling away smoothly either. Something you have to try to believe - it surprised me)

[Russ Bost]

My ZZR1400 engined Furore F1 will pull away on tickover! I'd put it up against the 1.0 Ecoboost anyday, lighter, cheaper, more durable, simpler & less to go wrong (no turbo), as mentioned above pootling round town in 6th gear at less than 30mph it's quite happy, but drop it about 4 gears & give it a bootful & it's a bit like pressing the hyperspace button.
I think you'll find that the Ecoboost is no lighter than the Sigma & Duratec engines with similar power if you're looking at complete units with exhaust etc. It may be slightly more economical, but that's really of little significance in the kitcar market.
Agree with everything Huff has said above - tho' personnaly I prefer something beefier than the R1, but it's still a capable engine.

[Furyblade_Lee]

Quote: "Reliability? Durability? Driveability?"
"...though it will be harder to drive if you need 7 or 8,000 rpm to pull away of course! "

Yes, bike engines have none of those attributes. Especially my R1. It's only managed 38,000 miles so far, broken down once and its so undriveable I certainly HAVENT driven it to Monte Carlo 3 times OR pootled my little girl to school in the school run traffic. Kangaroo'ing and stalling all the way, unable to hold it on the cluch uphill its soooooooooo undriveable it a joke!

I wish this sort of ste talked stopped. It simply is that. ste.

Back on topic, the ecoboost could make a great engine but I can only see a point if it is really light as I am sure it wont be cheap and its not making monster power. someone with deep pockets will do it I am sure, and it could be a corker.

Edited by Furyblade_Lee on Monday 29th October 18:15

[MX7]

Furyblade_Lee said:

Quote: "Reliability? Durability? Driveability?"
"...though it will be harder to drive if you need 7 or 8,000 rpm to pull away of course! "

Yes, bike engines have none of those attributes. Especially my R1. It's only managed 38,000 miles so far, broken down once and its so undriveable I certainly HAVENT driven it to Monte Carlo 3 times OR pootled my little girl to school in the school run traffic. Kangaroo'ing and stalling all the way, unable to hold it on the cluch uphill its soooooooooo undriveable it a joke!

I wish this sort of ste talked stopped. It simply is that. ste.

You do realise that it's possible that some people might have a different opinion to you?