www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQH9B9rskhg
I have to say, I'm impressed by this engine, it's seriously clever stuff. Can't wait to see how it performs in the real world. Hopefully better than the Fiat Twinair...
|
Cambelt on the oily side of engine. Curious?
Exhaust manifold inside cylinder head. What's that going to do for the cooling system?
|
+ 1
Any yet . . .
Shoot me down as a luddite if you like, but I get the feeling that in the quest for better and better headline figures in terms of MPG and exhaust emissions we are losing out in terms of cost of maintenance and engine longevity (at least in terms of the point where it becomes uneconomic to repair).
Two examples from the video:
1. @0.50 ... a drive belt immersed in oil....
2. @1.44 ...an all-new exhaust manifold, which is now integrated into the cylinder head...
Does this drive belt need changing? If so, it will be an even fiddlier and costlier job than usual.
What sort of life does this exhaust manifold expect to have? That would be another job that will be very expensive, as it is now "integrated". (I was quoted almost a grand for replacing the one in my last car - admittedly not a Ford - and that was just a conventional manifold).
Yet something else for the guy who buys a car second- or third- hand to think about.
Last edited by: Londoner on Thu 10 Nov 11 at 15:37
|
Interesting concept.
Is that cold air cycled around the cylinder (shown at 42 seconds) ?
Has that been done before and what is the advantage ?
|
>> Interesting concept.
>>
>> Is that cold air cycled around the cylinder (shown at 42 seconds) ?
>> Has that been done before and what is the advantage ?
I understand it to mean that coolant isn't circulated around the cylinder block until the engine reaches an optimum temperature, although it's still pumped around the head. With the exhaust manifold inside the head also heating the coolant I'd guess it means a quicker warm-up, hence lower emissions and reduced fuel consumption
|
>>Cambelt on the oily side of engine. Curious?>>
My '99 Honda mower has an internal cam belt.
|
I'm a little nervous from the long term maintenance side too. But if it works and it is reliable, then it's technology that's well overdue. It's good to see someone trying it out.
One thing that wasn't on the video was the fact that despite being a 3 cylinder engine, it doesn't have a balancer shaft, thus keeping the engine physically smaller, and reducing losses that would be due to the extra load of a shaft turning for no reason other than to smooth vibration out.
Their solution to the vibration problem? Make the flywheel deliberately unbalanced in such a way as that smooths the vibration out instead. Clever thinking if it works. Of course, if might result in flywheel longevity issues...
I may be naive, but I'm assuming that in 360,000km of durability trials, they should have nailed the reliability side?
See:
www.ford.co.uk/AboutFord/News/VehicleNews/Ecoboost-in-Focus
Last edited by: oilburner on Thu 10 Nov 11 at 16:08
|
My sort of small engine.
It ought to work well. I look forward to hearing one. Oil quality and condition will be important. But then they always are.
|
I could see problems if a service was not performed or a service was performed late.
However, I really do like the idea on 1.0L engine with over 100bhp.
Daihatsu charade times again !
|
>>an all-new exhaust manifold, which is now integrated into the cylinder head...
This sounds like good, clear design thinking from Ford. After all, what purpose does a seperate exhaust manifold actually have? The exhaust gases already run in ports in the cylinder head, and if these ports can be formed in the right shapes to provide the correct interconnection between ports for good gas flow / scavenging, then, why not simply incorporate them into the head.
Incorporating the manifold into the ductile aluminium alloy head will probably give better reliability than using an inherently brittle casting to form the exhaust manifold.
The offset crank is also good design thinking - it's an idea I've been boring people with for a long time, there's no inherent need for symmetry, or for the crank axis and cylinder axis to be coincident. The original idea of offsetting the crank is, of course, an extremely old one.
As for running the belt in oil, this forces the belt housing to be oil tight, thus preventing external contamination by hard solid particles which cause damage to conventional belts. I wonder if there are stringent, engine specififc, oil requirements to ensure material compatibility - would the belt rot if you used cheap nasty oil rather than oil meeting the Ford spec?
|
>> This sounds like good, clear design thinking from Ford. After all, what purpose does a
>> seperate exhaust manifold actually have? The exhaust gases already run in ports in the cylinder
>> head, and if these ports can be formed in the right shapes to provide the
>> correct interconnection between ports for good gas flow / scavenging, then, why not simply incorporate
>> them into the head.
Yes it makes sense, I assume its not been done before because that will be a tricky pattern to cast.
|
>> I may be naive, but I'm assuming that in 360,000km of durability trials, they should
>> have nailed the reliability side?
>>
No - not suggesting that in any way. The bald fact is that manufacturers do all of this worthwhile stuff in testing durability, but they still hit problems in the real world. We've discussed them often enough,e.g. Mercedes injectors, BMW turbos, DMFs, DPFs, etc etc.
Maybe the tests don't mirror the real world enough - I don't know.
|
>> I may be naive, but I'm assuming that in 360,000km of durability trials, they should
>> have nailed the reliability side?
On the few hand built engines they tested, yeah..
360k is not much, I would have have expected several millions of miles testing on hundreds of engines from the actual production line to be used.
|
|
Or you could, y'know, have a diesel that delivers 180bhp and equivalent-or-better fuel economy.
|
There are two things I'd like an explanation for about this engine.
If the belt is immersed in oil, will it last the life of the engine? If so, why use a belt rather than a chain?
And how does the two stage oil pump work in giving optimum pressure according to engine needs? A standard pump increases pressure with revs, so giving the engine the protection it needs at higher speeds.
|
A standard pump increases pressure with revs, so giving the engine the protection
>> it needs at higher speeds.
And insufficient pressure at tickover.
|
>> There are two things I'd like an explanation for about this engine.
>>
>> If the belt is immersed in oil, will it last the life of the engine?
>> If so, why use a belt rather than a chain?
A chain is heavy, unblanced, saps power and is expensive to produce and source.
|
|
I wouldn't worry too much about cars being too expensive to repair when they get older because of more complicated engine technology. The way things are going the cost of replacing a headlight bulb will have put many of them beyond economic repair long before the engine needs attention.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Thu 10 Nov 11 at 17:04
|
>> A chain is heavy, unblanced, saps power and is expensive to produce and source.
>>
Yet many people prefer their engines to have chains, rather than belts.
Are they more reliable? Are they just necessary on more powerful engines?
Or is the attraction that they don't need an expensive cambelt change?
|
|
The attraction is that they don't need an expensive cambelt change, and also that the (admittedly small) likelihood of a belt snapping at 70mph is reduced.
|
>> And how does the two stage oil pump work in giving optimum pressure according to
>> engine needs? A standard pump increases pressure with revs, so giving the engine the >> protection it needs at higher speeds.
The first thing to clarify is that engine bearing lubrication does not depend upon pressure. The oil pressure which maintains a clearance between the crank journals and the bearings results purely from the relative rotation of the two parts.
What is really required at the bearings is enough oil flow to allow hydrodynamic lubrication to develop.
At design time, the oil pump is therefore sized to ensure that under worst case conditions there is enough oil flow to provide hydrodynamic lubrication. Worst case conditions, in this respect, corresponds to high temperatures, and low engine speeds. When the engine is cool, the oil is more viscous, and it can form a thicker film.
When the engine is running quickly, the dynamics of the relative rotation enables the oil to produce enough pressure to create a hydrodynamic lubrication condition. High speeds are, therefore, an easy condition to satisfy - the mechanics of hydrodynamic lubrication helps us here.
For all other conditions other than very hot, very slow running, the oil pump delivers too much oil, and under these conditions, oil pressure develops, which we measure, and use to trigger oil pressure warning systems.
For Mercedes Benz car engines, for example, hot tickover oil pressure must be above 0.3 Bar ~ 5psi.
This needless production of oil pressure causes a real power loss - we are burning fuel to no good purpose.
For a large proportion of an engine's usage, this excess oil pressure is simply vented via the oil pressure relief valve, back to the sump. Energy utterly wasted.
So, the Ford oil pump will have a large displacement (i.e., it will pump a larger volume of oil per revolution) when the oil pressure in the gallery is low, and as the pressure rises, the mechanism will reduce the displacement accordingly.
|
>> So, the Ford oil pump will have a large displacement (i.e., it will pump a
>> larger volume of oil per revolution) when the oil pressure in the gallery is low,
>> and as the pressure rises, the mechanism will reduce the displacement accordingly.
Thanks NC.
|
>> Thanks NC.
But not enough to give him a thumbs up?
|
I wonder what it'll do for car design. The block of this engine will sit on a sheet of A4.
No more long front ends = more cabin space in a shorter lighter wheel base ?
If the exhaust gases are cooler as suggested in the video as a result of the new manifold then that can only be a good thing for turbo life. I've only ever had one exhaust manifold fail and that was on a car which was known for cracking manifolds (inherent design fault).
|
>> I wonder what it'll do for car design.
Indeed... I would want a sort of Mini-Marcos (anyone remember those?) for the 21st century, with modern materials and construction methods (GRP was a bit heavy and rough despite its advantages): lightweight, aerodynamic, corrosion-free, long-geared, terrific handling, no overweight bells, whistles and redundant secondary safety carp... but Ford probably won't do it like that. It wouldn't be allowed.
I can dream though.
|
|
Some interesting looking technology there, being a bangernomics buyer then hopefully any flaws that show up in volume production will be well known before they reach my end of the food chain. 100+ bhp from 1 litre is certainly pretty impressive for a volume product.
|
Daihatsu had a 1 litre, 100 hp 3 cylinder petrol engined supermini on sale 25 years ago.
Some of the technology on this Ford engine is impressive though. if it works reliably.
|
|
Oil filter looks a bit tricky to reach.
|
>> Daihatsu had a 1 litre, 100 hp 3 cylinder petrol engined supermini on sale 25
>> years ago.
Did it have comparable torque though?
|
>> Did it have comparable torque though?
No, not quite 130NM at 3500 RPM, versus 170NM of the 125PS Ecoboost. I suspect the Ford engine needs barely more than half the revs of the old timer to produce its peak too. Fuelling and turbo technology has come a heck of a long way in the last couple of decades, and it's especially impressive when you consider a new engine will have to meet emissions regs that an engine designer couldn't have envisaged in their worst nightmares back in the 80's.
The Charade was a quick little thing though. 0-60 in around 7.5 secs, and 115 mph top end. Pretty impressive for such a dinky engine.
|
|
Apart from the daihatsu did any other car maker produce a 1.0L engine with 100 bhp?
|
|
Honda were knocking out naturally aspirated engines with over 100bhp/litre in the late 80s and you can currently buy a 1l smart with 102bhp - easily mappable to 120bhp
Last edited by: 832ark on Fri 11 Nov 11 at 10:17
|
...Honda were knocking out naturally aspirated engines with over 100bhp/litre in the late 80s...
High revs, no torque.
As has been said, the advance here is bags of torque which makes the engine usable, even enjoyable, in a family hatchback.
|
>>High revs, no torque.
Its better to produce torque at high RPM than low RPM hence why diesels with huge torque outputs are generally slower than petrols with much lower torque figures.
|
>> Honda were knocking out naturally aspirated engines with over 100bhp/litre in the late 80s
Yep, and with less torque than a 2 year old wielding a plastic screwdriver.
Civic Type R - 197bhp from 2.0, but only 196nm.
Ford 1.0 EcoBoost - 123bhp from 1.0 with 200nm on overboost, 170nm from 1300 - 4500rpm.
I know which I'd rather have in the real world.
|
>>I know which I'd rather have in the real world
Yep me too and it wouldn't be the POS Ford nor that CTR but the proper CTR from 1998. Maybe for the man in the street who just sees a car as white goods then great.
|
|
Couldn't disagree more. The old n/a 1.6 certainly ticks the box for the white goods brigade, but 170-200nm at 1300rpm will scare the socks off most folk! :)
|
>>Couldn't disagree more. The old n/a 1.6 certainly ticks the box for the white goods >>brigade, but 170-200nm at 1300rpm will scare the socks off most folk! :)
You can't be serious, it might 'feel' nippy but it certainly won't be. Anyone scared by such a car shouldn't really be on the road 0-60 in a Focus with that engine would be around the 9-10 sec mark which is not quick or fast in any way, shape or form. Just another appliance for the 'white goods' brigade I'm afraid. Dull as dishwater.
|
...Just another appliance for the 'white goods' brigade I'm afraid. Dull as dishwater...
Compare like with like.
A Focus with that engine should be a good drive, compared to most other hatchbacks.
But dull compared to a Veyron.
|
We had a V reg Accord with the 146bhp 2.0 VTEC engine. It was ok, but you had to be in the mood to have fun in it because of the need to rev the engine to get the best out of it. A lot of the time it felt 'heavy'.
My 128bhp 2.0 mk1 Focus estate is fun much more often, because it's got useful low and mid range torque making it feel punchy. The figures will tell you it's no ball of fire, but there's more to having fun in a car than a quick 0-60.
|
>> no ball of fire, but there's more to having fun in a car than a
>> quick 0-60.
To me and the kind of driving I do, a car is most useful with a great "0-30 with no gear change" time - the step smartly away from the lights mode, a great "60-80 with no gear change" time - the step smartly into the fast lane mode, and the "climb this hill, maintain momentum, with just a slight squeeze of the throttle and no down change" mode.
|
>> To me and the kind of driving I do, a car is most useful with a great "0-30 with no gear
>> change" time - the step smartly away from the lights mode, a great "60-80 with no gear
>> change" time - the step smartly into the fast lane mode,
And is a reason I have a 170PS diesel. And because of how I choose to drive at times I won't get the maximum MPG that is theoretically possible. On combined driving (so stop-start, short journeys etc) I expect low to mid 40s mpg.
|
>>To me and the kind of driving I do, a car is most useful with a great "0-30 with no gear change" time - the step smartly away from the lights mode, a great "60-80 with no gear change" time - the step smartly into the fast lane mode, and the "climb this hill, maintain momentum, with just a slight squeeze of the throttle and no down change" mode.
Like I've said Zeddo, what you need is a Kia Pride. An early, pre FI model doesn't have a rev limiter (other than valve bounce). They'll rev to over 7K, which is as near as damnit to 30 MPH in first.
1324cc, twin-choke carb'ed, 65 BHP in an 800 Kg package.
|
>> Like I've said Zeddo, what you need is a Kia Pride
Z's got some pride you know. What rubbish. Who wants to drive a tin can with zero crash protection? Some like you do on trials.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sat 12 Nov 11 at 01:42
|
>> >> Like I've said Zeddo, what you need is a Kia Pride
>>
>> Z's got some pride you know. What rubbish. Who wants to drive a tin can
>> with zero crash protection? Some like you do on trials.
>>
Crash protection is totally unimportant.
.
.
.
.
.
As long as you dont crash.
And then make sure you crash at less than 40mph.
|
>> We had a V reg Accord with the 146bhp 2.0 VTEC engine. It was ok,
>> but you had to be in the mood to have fun in it because of
>> the need to rev the engine to get the best out of it. A lot
>> of the time it felt 'heavy'.
And they're thirsty too. When I first drove one I thought I'd left a door ajar, there was so much road noise. A good bangernomics car if bought with good history.
|
I drove a Honda Civic with the fastest VTEC engine at the time - mid 90s.
Nothing happened until about 6,000rpm, then it all happened until about 7,500rpm.
It could catch you out if 6,000rpm arrived while you were still changing direction.
Very wearing to drive, and pointless bordering on dangerous for road use.
Might be fun on a track.
|
>>We had a V reg Accord with the 146bhp 2.0 VTEC engine. It was ok, but you had to >>be in the mood to have fun in it because of the need to rev the engine to get the >>best out of it. A lot of the time it felt 'heavy'
Not really a proper VTEC to be honest, designed more for economy with VTEC only on the inlet cam I believe. Not especially quick, not especially economical - will most likely last forever though :-)
>>I drove a Honda Civic with the fastest VTEC engine at the time - mid 90s.
>>Nothing happened until about 6,000rpm, then it all happened until about 7,500rpm.
>>It could catch you out if 6,000rpm arrived while you were still changing direction.
>>Very wearing to drive, and pointless bordering on dangerous for road use
Little bit on the lardy side those Civics, suggest you try a 89-91 CRX with the same engine or the JDM only Type R version of the Civic you drove with the 185bhp B16b or even a late 90's Integra type R. As for the power band its more like 5,000rpm until 8,200rpm (or 9,000rpm in the type R.) I suggest that its the driver more than the car with your dangerous comment - I've probably done 150k + miles in various DOHC VTECs in stints up to 800miles per sitting mostly in excess of 4000rpm and have never been 'caught out' or found the power delivery even remotely dangerous. Never found it wearing or tiring in any way, just a massive smile on my face every time the VTEC engages! Each to his own though!
|
>>Never found it wearing or tiring in any way, just
>> a massive smile on my face every time the VTEC engages! Each to his own
>> though!
>>
Definitely. I'm glad you enjoy it, but I *know* I wouldn't like that kind of power delivery at all, and I'm keener than most people to actually use the revs on offer. Vive le difference eh! :)
|
I remember my first drive in a VTEC Honda very well. It was an early 90s Civic VTi
After tootling round the town for a bit, I hit the dual carriageway and mashed the throttle into the carpet in 3rd at about 40 mph. It was a case of "oh, this is a bit disapp....*expletive, expletive, expletive"
Huge fun for a blast, and would be fantastic on a track. Think it would irritate me on a daily basis though.
|
|
If I want to have to drive around at 4k revs for normal progress, and 8-10k for crazy progress I will get a motorbike.
|
>> >> Did it have comparable torque though?
>>
>> No, not quite 130NM at 3500 RPM, versus 170NM of the 125PS Ecoboost.
Still, the Charade will presumably be significantly lighter than whatever the new Ford engine goes into, despite the weight savings.
|
>> Still, the Charade will presumably be significantly lighter than whatever the new Ford engine goes
>> into, despite the weight savings.
>>
Maybe not in a Ford badged vehicle but what about Ginetta, Marcos (as AC suggested) and a number of other low volume manufacturers who build lightweight, stripped out road rockets ? Plenty of scope there for something out of the ordinary.
|
Ford do proper engineering, so it's unlikely the retail versions of this engine will be mobile test beds.
Also, the warranty on new cars is good, so it's against Ford's financial interest for the engine to be anything other than reliable.
Also, much of the technology is already tried and tested in their other Ecoboost engines, which have been around for a while.
I reckon there will be some consumer resistance from buyers who will find it hard to believe a 1.0l engine can adequately power a medium-sized hatchback.
Buying a car is a big purchase, which makes most buyers act in a conservative way.
I can see people choosing the 1.6l 'just to be on the safe side'.
|
>>
>> I can see people choosing the 1.6l 'just to be on the safe side'.
>>
If Ford were clever, instead of badging and marketing this as a 1.0 turbo, they should sell them badged on equivalent power or torque. e.g. BWM 328i being 2.0 not 2.8. If it works for BMW...
They could call it EcoBoost 1600 or something. That would do it! ;)
|
Peak torque of 170nm from just 1300rpm. That's gotta shift eh?
As to the question further above - why not have a diesel with similar economy and more power?
1) lightness - very small engine will mean nice light front end, better to drive
2) simplicity - for all its cleverness, it's really quite simple, no DPF for a start, only 3 cyl, 12 valves, etc
3) cost - should be cheaper to make in comparison to a 2.0 4 pot diesel
4) petrol - currently around 3-8p a litre cheaper than diesel, a gap that might grow
5) choice - not everybody likes or wants diesel power
I'm all for it.
|
hope it comes with a chassis:)
|
The new Nissan Micra has a 98PS three-cylinder supercharged engine:
tinyurl.com/cj6f2xa
|
This engine is basically a VTEC with a turbocharger.
I expect Honda will be along in the next 12-24 months to show how it should be done.
|
...I expect Honda will be along in the next 12-24 months to show how it should be done...
Fitted to a car with square wheels, doubtful build quality and a rubbish semi-auto box.
Ford had reliable but lumpy engines for years, but that's changed recently.
|
>>This engine is basically a VTEC with a turbocharger.
>>I expect Honda will be along in the next 12-24 months to show how it should be done
Folks have been turboing VTECs for years. A 1800cc B18 can be made to reliably produce 280-300bhp and return mid 40s mpg (though not necessarily at the same time)
|
The new Nissan Micra has a 98PS three-cylinder supercharged engine:
Cool, but I'd prefer the earlier supercharged and turbo'd micra please - what a crazy idea that was!
|
Ford's new 1.0 3 pot - wow - bathtub tom
