|
Reading What Car and Auto Express, they both mention Ford trying their new 1 litre Ecoboost 3 cylinder engine in the new Mondeo. Produces 123 bhp as opposed to the current 1.6's 118bhp.
|
really really not sure I would want a 1 litre 3 banger in a car the size and weight of a Mondeo, no matter how much they boost it.
Not sure I would have the 1.6 either mind.
|
|
Years ago there was a 1.3 Montego, the Mini engine I guess. No skins were dragged off any rice puddings in the driving of that car!
|
>>new 1 litre Ecoboost 3 cylinder engine in the new Mondeo. Produces 123 bhp
Am I alone in being amazed at those figures?
|
>> >>new 1 litre Ecoboost 3 cylinder engine in the new Mondeo. Produces 123 bhp
For how long?
|
>> >>new 1 litre Ecoboost 3 cylinder engine in the new Mondeo. Produces 123 bhp
>>
>> Am I alone in being amazed at those figures?
No, thats why i dont trust it.
|
We need a new expression !
The familiar cry about a Ford of "Its only running on three cylinders !" no longer seems right
|
>>new 1 litre Ecoboost 3 cylinder engine in the new Mondeo. Produces 123 bhp
>>Am I alone in being amazed at those figures?
Possibly, 123bhp per litre is hardly impressive for a petrol turbo
|
>> >>Am I alone in being amazed at those figures?
>>
>> Possibly, 123bhp per litre is hardly impressive for a petrol turbo
I would be interested to hear which standard production engine your using for your comparison.
As an example, how many BHP per litre did the *standard* Sierra Cosworth have?
|
>> As an example, how many BHP per litre did the *standard* Sierra Cosworth have?
If this is the initial Cosworth's they had built for homologation to go racing, is this before or after the extra blockage was taking out of the turbo. I understand the first ones had larger turbos (blocked for road use) to get the power for the race cars. Smaller turbos used later.
This was in the days of simpler turbos and there would be lag for the large turbo cars.
All from vague memories of reading car magazines as a teenager.... so could have remembered incorrectly.
But I think the standard Sierra Cosworth was about 201bhp in 1986. But was a 550bhp version in 1987 for racing.
|
Yes, there were lots of variants, but,
>>But I think the standard Sierra Cosworth was about 201bhp in 1986
sounds about right for the standard car.
Now, how does this car, at the extreme end of the scale for public/road use compare, in terms of BHP per litre with the new shopping trolley Mondeo?
Another way to consider this - the car has about 120 BHP. A 1990s Cavalier SRi had 130.
|
>> Now, how does this car, at the extreme end of the scale for public/road use compare, in
>> terms of BHP per litre with the new shopping trolley Mondeo?
But the standard card was not at the extreme end of anything. The engine in racing form (remove the baffling from the turbo) was capable of more like 500+bhp. There was a 224bhp version a year or so later.
And turbo's back then were either on or off... you know this. So not very drivable. Fast forward 26 years and maybe this amount of power and torque from a 3 cylinder engine is not that amazing.
What I'd like to understand (and you NC was the one I thought might chip in to respond to my 3 vs 4 cylinder comment) is it significant the engine is a 3 cylinder 1.0l? i.e. not a 4 cylinder. Does the fact each cylinder is 333cc make a difference as opposed to 4 x 250cc cylinders.
|
>>But the standard card was not at the extreme end of anything.
For standard production road use, it WAS.
Yes, you could take the engine much further, but, compared to standard cars, a Sierra Cosworth did not represent a standard shooping trolley choice of car did it?
Remember, we are not talking about racing engines.
Three cylinders just means reduced friction losses - there's nothing particularly magical about cylinder numbers, sizes, and layouts, despite what you might read in motoring journalism. Obvioulsy manufacturers like to spin that their new engine exploits some sweet spot, etc, etc, but, all engines obey the same physical laws....
|
>>I would be interested to hear which standard production engine your using for your comparison
Take your pick:
Mid 90s MR2 GTS 245bhp - 2litre turbo
Evo up to 400bhp - 2litre turbo
Current GTR - 545bhp - 3.8litre turbo
These are all reliably producing a higher specific output than the Ford junk. Even in 1988 Honda were producing over 100 bhp/litre NA engines. Bolt a turbo to that 1.6 VTEC and you've got a reliable 240bhp that in the real world can return nearly 50mpg on a motorway run.
|
I can see how it's possible to get that level of bhp from a 1.0l engine but I'd not want one. There are many on here that think a 1.4l turbo is taking things too far for large cars.
I am assuming the fact it is a three cylinder engine has something to do with how it's possible, i.e. more power/torque from each cylinder. Otherwise they would make a 4 cylinder version?
|
>> >>new 1 litre Ecoboost 3 cylinder engine in the new Mondeo. Produces 123 bhp
>>
>> Am I alone in being amazed at those figures?
No. 120bhp/litre is still the exception even with turbos. And it a reasonable assumption that Ford is confident of reliability too.
|
Sierra and Cavalier were also available with a 1.3 engine and poverty spec trim in the eighties, but I can't believe they sold many!
Mind you, company car tax thresholds led to some strange combinations; I remember my Dad had a 100 Avant (the aerodynamic one) which seemed like a whale of a car at the time, which came with a 1.8 Golf engine developing all of 90bhp IIRC. How times have changed (and how much heavier cars have become...google shows the weight of one of those to have been around 1100Kgs)
Peter
|
>>Sierra also available with a 1.3 engine and poverty spec trim in the eighties, but I can't believe they sold many!
They would be rare now. Just a handful of non Coswoth Sierras and far less Cortinas and Granadas for sale on Autotrader.
I recall the 2.0L Granada Ghias loaded with all sorts of extras as a tax threshold dodge.
|
>>
>> I recall the 2.0L Granada Ghias loaded with all sorts of extras as a tax
>> threshold dodge.
>>
Vauxhall did the same with the Carlton CDX, IIRC there was a list price tax threshold of 19250 quid (mid 80s), and they loaded the toys up to that level.
Returning to the OP, is this the engine we discussed here a few weeks back, there were some fancy Ford videos and stuff?
My mate had a 1.3 Cavalier Mk2, it would cruise at 80 5 up, but took a while to get there.
|
>> but took a while to get there.
Nowhere near as long as it did with a Maxi 1750 of the same era.
|
|
If course it might be fair to wait and drive one before making ones mind up, Ford arent exactly poor engineers, Im sure the driving characteristics will be well thought out.
|
|
I think FoR is right in saying this probably drives as well as a smaller capacity non-turbo car of a few years ago (like a 1.6 or more probably a 1.8). I'd not want to drive them either.
|
In terms of power / weight ratio it's probably not far off that of our recently departed A3 1.6. While no ball of fire, I always got quite a lot of satisfaction from driving it briskly - a reminder that having more power isn't really necessary 99% of the time.
IIRC it took around 11 seconds to get to 60, and had a max speed of 110ish - I'd imagine the new Mondeo can beat that top speed if not the accelaration. And tbh, although both of our current cars are capable of getting to 60 in under 8 seconds and exceeding 140 mph, the difference in journey times when using them vs the A3 is negligible, even on long journeys
|
The forthcoming Focus ST has 250bhp from a 2.0 litre turbo I think. The Astra VXR and Golf GTI aren't far off that bhp/litre figure either.
I reckon they can make the 1.0T engine deliver its power more like a family car and less like a hot hatch, many "sports" models in the past have used exactly the same engine as the normal model but with a different throttle map and louder exhaust. It's got to be possible to do that the other way around.
|
The engine in the Golf GTi is available in more powerful specs.
NC, my question about the 3 cylinders was more to do with the capacity of each cylinder and what force it produces during combustion. Not the number of cylinders per se.
But going back to the Cosworth engine, in standard trim it was under performing. You just had to remove baffles from the turbo to make it run with a lot more power and torque too.
If we're talking about extremes, what about the 1500bhp from the BMW 1.5l in F1 cars?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 13 Jan 12 at 17:54
|
If it doesn't work it won't sell (for long).
Honda milk 240bhp from a 2 litre NON-turbo engine.
One of the most reliable engines known to humanity.
All this talk of high output engines being made of chocolate is utter nonsense.
Much of the wear of an engine is caused by the acids formed by combustion when the engine is cold - relatively little is due to thrashing the engine, especially if lubrication is up to scratch.
|
Honda milk 240bhp from a 2 litre NON-turbo engine.
Indeed, very true- and look at your average superbike engine 160 +bhp and as reliable as the sun coming up. BUT - making that power at twice the rev limit of a typical car engine!
I too find it difficult to envisage how a small 1 litre can produce its torque at low rpms, suitable for lugging a large car about. Can NC or someone technical explain how that is achieved please? And how are the latest crop of turbo petrols doing in terms of longevity/durability?
Perhaps we have some adjusting to do, we have all been used to a diet of large capacity turbo diesels for the last 15 years and times are changing?
|
VAG used to offer the 1.8T in 225 BHP form - think it may have been in the TT?
The 1.4TSi can now be had in 160 BHP form, but I am sure it could be chipped a fair way further.
|
Figures obtained from Wikipedia
Honda VTEC K20A
Compression Ratio 11.7
Maximum Power 240 PS (180 kW; 240 hp) @8400 rpm
Maximum Torque 216 N·m (159 lb·ft) @7000
Maximum engine speed 8400
So, on a per litre basis
Power, 120 PS per litre
Torque 108 Nm per litre
Ford 1.0 litre Eco boost
Power, 120 PS per litre
Torque 170 Nm per litre, 200Nm per litre on overboost
If it's like the larger ecoboost engines, the compression ratio will be 10
So, in terms of torque, the ecoboost does produce a usable level of torque, and should, therefore, be driveable. Compare 170 Nm with the torque available in a car like a 2 litre N/A petrol Vectra A (C20NE).
|
>> VAG used to offer the 1.8T in 225 BHP form - think it may have
>> been in the TT?
240 in the last version of the old TT.
|
>>NC, my question about the 3 cylinders was more to do with the capacity of each cylinder and what force it produces during combustion. Not the number of cylinders per se.
Other things been equal*, the output from a cylinder scales with its swept volume.
* other things very rarely are equal
If I've understood your question correctly (please forgive me if I haven't), then, with direct injection, there will be a limit below which it becomes difficult to obtain good atomisation from the injector nozzles - important to obtain acceptable emissions figures.
|
I wonder what the 'real world' fuel economy will be like?
I understand the Fiat multi-air and the blown Vauxhall 1400cc engined models have given cause for complaint about not achieving very good economy.
|
>>I too find it difficult to envisage how a small 1 litre can produce its torque at low rpms, suitable for lugging a large car about. Can NC or someone technical explain how that is achieved please?
Traditionally, the problem with petrol engines was knock - this placed very clear limits on compression ratio and/or turbo boost.
By keeping the fuel out of the cylinder until the very last moment, high compression pressures and hence temperatures can be reached without knock.
The interaction between injection and ignition must be carefully controlled - both in terms of the timing of the two events, and in ensuring that there will be an ignitable mixture at the spark plug - the charge will be more inhomogeneous than in a traditional port injected engine, and the danger would be that there would only be "fresh air" by the plug as the spark fires.
|
I remember driving an early Passat TD (90bhp) thinking - 'wow this thing shifts for a diesel.'
123bhp in a 1500kg car is never going to feel fast, but if peak torque is coming on song at as little as 1200-1500rpm, driveability should be fine.
The 1.4T in the Skoda Superb peaks at 122bhp, with torque of 200Nm from 1500-4000rpm - 0.62mph 10.5sec (kerb weight 1400kg).
That torque figure and rev range compares well with a 2.0-2.2 litre NA engine in a modest state of tune so I would expect driveability not to be an issue.
N_C has mentioned more than once that most cars have much more 'throttle' than is necessary to run them - a built in inefficiency - I think the low capacity turbos where the amount of boost is adjustable is a clever way of addressing his concern and improving efficiency:-
- turn up the boost to accelerate, then turn it down for a steady speed and reap the benefits of a smaller engine running in its comfort zone.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 13 Jan 12 at 21:02
|
I found the 122PS VAG 1.4TSi in a Golf VI to be very drivable - much more so than the 1.6CR TD is IMHO.
This was without the supercharger too. I like the trend towards turbocharged petrol engines as it combines the refinement of a petrol (better controlled ignition perhaps?) with decent torque across the rev range - so driveability.
I've driven the Honda VTECs and they're lovely, but (if I'm honest) pretty gutless unless you're wringing their neck which is fine when you're in the mood - but on the commute home in heavy traffic in the rain? I don't think so, I find them fun but wearing.
I've resorted to diesels in the past 5 years but I'll be considering a turbo petrol next, as for small capacities - if the power and torque are delivered across the rev range then they won't 'feel small' cf the VAG 1.4TSi. 3 Cylinders will be sonically interesting but will save on friction I guess.
I'd still get a 2.0 ecoboost if I can afford it 'cos I like 200PS+ but I wouldn't discount the 1.0 for those content with less.
|
>> I've driven the Honda VTECs and they're lovely, but (if I'm honest) pretty gutless unless
>> you're wringing their neck which is fine when you're in the mood - but on
>> the commute home in heavy traffic in the rain? I don't think so, I find
>> them fun but wearing.
My sentiments exactly.
A friend of mine had a Celica 190 VVTLi which used Toyota's take on this type of engine (>8k redline, big step in power past 6k). What frustrated me was that you couldn't drive it quickly without anyone within earshot turning their heads and pointing. Lots of speed yes, but a heck of a lot of fuss with it.
But boy, did it sound good. :-)
|
>>inhomogeneous
Wow! I had to look that up.
Still haven't a clue what it means!
|
A bit more on charge homogeneity - with apologies for mentioning wikipedia again;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratified_charge_engine
|
>>inhomogeneous
homogenous....? racing type spec for cars?
|
|
I see that VW offers a 1.4 tsi engine with 122 bhp which is pretty good for for a small engine. My 1.3 produces 70
|
>> I see that VW offers a 1.4 tsi engine with 122 bhp which is pretty
>> good for for a small engine. My 1.3 produces 70
>>
The 1.4 is also available with 140 and 160 BHP
|
|
Thanks for the input re even higher power outputs for this engine. Amazing, to me at least!
|
>>The 1.4 is also available with 140 and 160 BHP
And 180bhp in the SEAT Ibiza and Skoda Fabia.
Looking in WhatCar? it also shows the new SEAT Alhambra has a 150hp version of this engine to pull a 1700kg car with up to 7 adults and some luggage (say 2300kg).
As long as the power output is sufficient and the torque curve is nice and chunky from low revs you'll not be able to tell the displacement under the bonnet without looking.
|
|
The non-turbo 1.33 in my Auris produces 101bhp.
|
|
The non-turbo in a 95 Astra I had produced 90PS. First company car that was forced on me. But... it was dreadful because it was a 1.4 automatic!
|
A look at the number of fit and healthy six figure mileage Audi TT 225s and Seat Leon Cupra Rs is proof that 125-odd bhp per litre in a forced induction road car engine can be achieved without significant durability and reliability penalties. I have no concerns with that in itself.
Of more concern to me would be the fact a similarly high state of tune engine installed in a vehicle with a significantly inferior power to weight ratio will be asked to deliver much more of its power, more of the time.
With the best will in the world, you'd struggle to work a 225PS Audi TT's engine hard in normal A to B running about. In a big lump of a 1600+ kg car with 123PS though, however torquey it is, you would be using quite a lot of its potential just in daily running about. Over 100,000 miles, how well would it stand up?
Ford's durability record is pretty good in my experience, but even acknowledging that, I wouldn't want to be a 'guinea pig' customer with this car. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
|
>> Over 100,000 miles, how well would it stand up?
With the need to cut average emissions, marques need to play this game. Witness the Cygnet from Aston Martin.
And will they worry about the car still running in 10 years time - I doubt it. Nor will the person who bought it new.
This engine in many ways is no different a proposition to a 1.6 diesel BlueMotion VW Passat. It will work and does deliver good economy and low emissions on paper. In the real world, it will not have brilliant economy nor low emissions but that's irrelevant.
I doubt I will ever normally get near the official average mpg for my VW Passat CC (about 57mpg I think). But then with a heavy car and 170PS engine to enjoy do I care? No.
|
>> With the need to cut average emissions, marques need to play this game. Witness the
>> Cygnet from Aston Martin.
Don't get me wrong, I know why they are doing it. I just wouldn't want to be the person buying it out of warranty.
The only car I've ever known get near its official combined figure without driving unrealistically gently is our old mk4 Golf PD 130. Supposed to do 52.3 mpg. Does about 50 without trying.
By contrast, my 318d is supposed to do 60.1 mpg. I have yet to get within 10 mpg of it.
Last edited by: DP on Sat 14 Jan 12 at 21:33
|
>> Don't get me wrong, I know why they are doing it. I just wouldn't want to be the person buying it out of warranty.
I think we are in agreement. I got good mpg for me in the Passat recently (not within 10% of the official figure mind). Drove to South Wales via the motorways and back via A roads. Got about 47mpg I think. But involved some enjoyable driving on the way back on winding A roads.
When I first got the car I got on occasions (cursing on motorways) close to 60mpg.... steady driving etc. Just to see how it really is. But I tend to pull away from junctions and lights at a decent pace... and that takes it toll on mpg :-)
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sat 14 Jan 12 at 21:47
|
It was common practice 15 or 20 years ago for every car to have a badge on the rump showing the engine size. That seems to have died out, most cars now just have the model name and trim level.
Also, on many cars where the engine size is incorporated into the model name the two have diverged (Mercedes A160CDI and A180CDI both have the 1991cc motor, BMW 318d and 320d have the same 1995cc block, even the Mercedes S500 has had a 5.5 litre engine for several years).
In a few years' time manufacturers will stop including engine capacity in their publicity material - buyers won't even know whether they've got a 1.6 or a 2.0 litre, as long as it does the job. I can see cars being listed by power level alone, rather like lorries are already, e.g. the Scania R420, R500, R580 are powered by 11.7, 12.7 and 15.6 litre engines respectively but no mention of capacity is made by the manufacturers. The model numbers refer directly to the horsepower outputs.
Buyers will be choosing from a Mondeo 125, 160, 200 or 250hp without knowing (or caring) whether that power's achieved with a 1.0 turbo or a 2.2 16v engine, as long as the economy and emissions are alright and there aren't any horror stories about a particular engine on the internet. Actually, even if there are horror stories on the internet it won't stop a lot of people buying them (it didn't with VW coils or Merc Blue Efficiency injectors).
|
And don't mention BMW 323, 325, 328, 330 variants. Until fairly recently there was a BMW 325 with a detuned 3 litre straight six. No doubt the equivalent in the new range will be the 2.0 turbo.
Shame really. I don't think as a company car driver I'd opt for a 6 cylinder straight six BMW. But nice that these fine engined cars existed.
|
|
Would a three cylinder, one litre engine in a Mondeo have as much space around it as a MK1 - 4 Cortina?
|
>> Would a three cylinder, one litre engine in a Mondeo have as much space around it as [in] a MK1 - 4 Cortina?
Probably not, with all the ancilliary bits (PAS pump, AC compressor, air filter etc) and plastic covers.
It might lead to more efficient use of space in car designs, in time, if the motor *is* physically a lot smaller - a Toyota IQ-alike with double the IQ's 67bhp could be interesting, or more likely a lower-powered but 100mpg-capable version.
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Sat 14 Jan 12 at 23:02
|
>>
>> By contrast, my 318d is supposed to do 60.1 mpg. I have yet to get
>> within 10 mpg of it.
>>
Whereas my 330d (manual) easily achieved 45+mpg against a claimed average of 48mpg or thereabouts and my 170PD A4 struggled to get 40mpg with a claimed average of 49mpg even when driven gently.
I guess it depends on the engine, I still reckon that an unstressed and powerful engine delivers better real world economy than a highly stressed or underpowered tax dodger - at least in my hands.
N.B. I'm not suggesting that the 318d is a tax dodger - more the 1.6D DriveE V70s, 1.6D Passat Estates and their ilk, the very notion of which appal me (as do diesel cabriolets).
|
|
Always get between 50 and 54 MPG from the C5 - cant remember if the book figure is 52 or 54 but its there or there abouts
|
|
Whilst many of us would question getting 120+bhp out of a 1.0l engine, KIA will be expecting up to 240bhp from a 1.6 turbo. The same engine in a different level of tune will be in the Hyundai Veloster and producing 201bhp.
|
Times change. I remember in 1990 a carpet salesman acquaintance of mine expecting me to be impressed that his 2.0 Cavalier SRi had "a 130 horsepower lump". And yes, when 90-110hp was typical for a 2.0, it was a step forward. Ten years later, 150hp was commonplace, even without turbocharging, and nowadays turbos make 200+ routine.
My point is that it's not too big a leap from there to seeing 120hp from a 1.0 as perfectly achievable, without the need to suck teeth and question how long it will last. I imagine our early-90s forebears would have made much the same noises if told 100hp per litre could be achieved reliably.
|
>> Ten years later, 150hp was commonplace, even without turbocharging
And then they fitted the 150bhp engine with a catalytic converter and it became a 136bhp engine... :-)
Back when the Cavalier GSi was outputting 150bhp my brother had a Pug 405 Mi16 which produced 160bhp.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 19 Jan 12 at 15:21
|
I remember a version of the Daihatsu Charade in the early 90s which had a sub 1litre 3 cylinder engine producing 101bhp or so. It was turbocharged and known as the GTti.
I remember an acquaintance had one and it was a real rocket ship, as it probably only weighed around 800kg. It was also terrifying to drive due to the on/off nature of the turbo, the tail happy handling resulting in lift off oversteer and the fact that it was apparently made of cardboard.
Said acquaintance eventually traded it in for an XR2i. Hey ho.
|
>>>I imagine our early-90s forebears would have made much the same noises if told >>>100hp per litre could be achieved reliably.
100hp/litre NA was achieved reliably in the late 80s by Honda. In fact the Honda B16 is nigh on impossible to kill
|
>>100hp/litre NA was achieved reliably in the late 80s by Honda. In fact the Honda B16 is nigh on impossible to kill
Having ownder the B18 variant in a 5 door Civic for several years I can confirm this.
In a big, heavy car (say 1500-1600kg) it would be fairly unpleasant, relying on low gearing and revving its doodahs off to make progress.
A 1 litre VTEC pushing 120bhp would need to rev to 9000rpm to produce this output - it could shift a 1500kg car but again would need low gearing and mucho revs.
Turbocharging enables revs to be kept down by producing greater torque at a specific RPM than a NA engine. By reducing pumping inefficiencies turbocharging can also generally be made more fuel-efficient than simply raising the RPM ceiling.
Except for lightweight sporty vehicles VTEC without turbocharging has a limited life expectancy.
As I've mentioned previously: I can't wait for Honda to unveil its version of a low displacement turbo-charged VTEC engine....
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 20 Jan 12 at 14:44
|
Ford - Possible one litre engine for the Mondeo - Zero
