Ford Downsizes EcoBoost Turbo Engine to 3 Cylinders

[Fledermaus]

Ford again showed why it's the most forward-thinking US automaker with the unveiling of a three-cylinder EcoBoost – turbocharged – engine and the announcement that 90% of its cars sold in the United States in 2013 will have the EcoBoost technology. It will likely first appear in Ford's smallest US car, the Fiesta (pictured), probably in 2012. Ford claims a turbocharged engine can take the place of the next size up in a normally aspirated engine (no turbocharger or supercharger). This means a three-cylinder replaces the Fiesta's four cylinder, the EcoBoost four replaces a V6 in a Ford Taurus, and the EcoBoost V6 in a Ford pickup replaces a V8. They deliver the same performance as the next bigger engine with 20%-30% better gas mileage -- and Ford already has four- and six-cylinder EcoBoost engines ready to roll.

If the three-cylinder meets equals the performance of the current 1.6-liter normally aspirated four-cylinder engine, it would deliver at least 120 hp and get 40 mpg-plus on the highway - 50 MPG might be possible. More details are due at the Frankfurt Auto Show in September. Meanwhile, crows Joe Bakaj, Ford VP of powertrain engineering, "No one has ever built a three-cylinder engine quite like this. It's one of the most technically advanced and efficient engines we've ever designed." No one other than, say, Fiat, which did the same thing with two turbochargers, a sophisticated valve timing system, and a two-cylinder engine. The Fiat Air engine is already out in the Fiat 500 (the cute rounded thing smaller than a Mini Cooper) and it's the reigning World Engine of the Year. The Fiat Air engine delivers 85 hp from 1.4 liters.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2386519,00.asp

[leveymg]

1. Zero progress has been made since the 1980s when the 3 cyl. Suzuki Swift/Geo Metro got 53 mpg

The oil industry owns the auto manufacturers, including Ford. So, nothing changes.

Back to the future.

[madrchsod]

2. i had a metro...great car till it rusted but..

the engine was one of the best i`ve ever had. i`d average around 40-45 on the highway. my 86 honda crx got 40mpg at 70-80 mph.

[madokie]

6. And the geo was a tiny little piece of shit too

I had to help a friend of our replace the exhaust valves in their geo 3 cylinder suzuki engine twice and he did it a couple times on his own after I showed him how to do it and the valves cost almost 80 bucks each. He finally got rid of it, good riddance is the way he put it. I wouldn't put my family in a tiny little car like that and get out there and mix it up with the 18 wheelers for god or money. He and I could pick up the rear of it and set it on blocks so we wouldn't have to jack that end up so we could get the little tinny piece of shit up where we could work on it without being on our knees. We'd have to jack the front up though as it was slightly heavier than we could lift.
It might have gotten 53 miles per gallon but I'm not going to be riding around on our highways in something that I'm the biggest part of it, save for the outer shell. so there

[AtheistCrusader]

10. I sold my Metro LSi a long time ago.

I still miss it, but it had a wierd electrical problem with the door switches and dome light. Only thing on the car I couldn't fix myself.

Never had a valve problem, 140,000 miles when I sold it. As far as I know, it's still on the road.

[FBaggins]

14. I wouldn't call that zero progress.

Didn't the Geo have to live with something like 50-55 hp to get that mileage?

A car that can get close to the same mileage out of a 120hp engine is a significant amount of progress. Those early GEOs were really short on power (a frequent complaint). When they redesigned it in the mid-90s they had it a bit more power (70-75 hp?) but then the fuel economy really dropped.

No tradeoff here.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. Reduction in displacement is "downsizing", not reduction of number of cylinders

and they would get much greater gains in fuel economy by moving to diesel TDI (turbocharged direct injection) engines than from sticking with gasoline for the US market (diesels get greater MPG because diesel has a higher energy density than gasoline). As a point of comparison here, the Ford Mondeo TDI sold in the UK gets a combined 39 miles per US gallon, while the hybrid Ford Fusion (same vehicle platform as the Mondeo, rebranded for the US market) gets...39 miles per US gallon. Still it's good to see that the US vehicle market is catching up with the rest of the world in terms of efficiency standards.

[Sherman A1]

4. Agreed

[TexasProgresive]

9. I drove a diesel Fiesta in Ireland in 92 or 93

It got an incredible 80 mpg.

[happyslug]

11. Gasoline has more energy then Diesel, but Diesel Engines can use higher compression

A diesel engines greatest advantage over a gasoline engine is that a Diesel engine use compression to ignite the diesel fuel, while a gasoline engine must use a spark-plug. The difference in Compression means less power is produced from a gasoline engine then a diesel engine for the same amount of fuel.

The biggest problem with a Diesel Engine is its very narrow "power band". This very narrow power ban is not a big problem with trucks and large engines, you just add additional gears, but it is a problem as you make the engine smaller. The Narrow Power band also includes a sharper drop off in power on both the low end and high end of the band. For example, if you need additional torque to get a vehicle out of mud hole (or to Accelerate to pass another car), a small diesel may not be able to do it, while the same size gasoline engine can pull the same size vehicle and load out of the mud hole (or accelerate to pass another car) with ease. In most situation this narrow power band is overcome with increase number of gears and larger engines, but that option declines as you go to smaller engines. When you can not do neither, AN d you want to go to smaller engines to make the car lighter, gasoline engines are better. This is why the US Army kept the 1/4 ton M151 Vietnam Era Jeep for years after the US Army converted to Diesel fuel for its 2 1/2 ton trucks (The main reason the US Army replaced the 1/4 ton M151 with the Humvee was the Humvee was the smallest vehicle you could have with a Diesel engine and an automatic transmission, that had enough power on the low end to pull put of mud, thus you replaced the equivalent of a compact car, the M151 Jeep, with the equivalent of a One ton Truck).

Just a comment that it is HOW the diesel is used in a Diesel Engine, compared to HOW Gasoline is used in a Gasoline Engine that makes the Diesel more efficient, not any increase in actual energy within the type of fuel.

Diesel fuel technically has greater power per volume but not per pound (I.e. Diesel Fuel has a higher density then Gasoline). Yes we buy diesel fuel and gasoline in gallons not pounds, but Diesel's energy advantage over gasoline is at best a 20% greater energy output. For an actual comparison of Diesel Fuel to Gasoline you NOT only have to compare gallon to gallon, but also pound to pound. In a pound to pound ratio, gasoline actually has more power.

More on the inherent fuel efficiency of the Diesel AND its main drawbacks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine

[A Simple Game]

13. News to me that gas has more energy than diesel.

From How stuff works. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/diesel3.htm
Diesel fuel has a higher energy density than gasoline. On average, 1 gallon (3.8 L) of diesel fuel contains approximately 155x106 joules (147,000 BTU), while 1 gallon of gasoline contains 132x106 joules (125,000 BTU). This, combined with the improved efficiency of diesel engines, explains why diesel engines get better mileage than equivalent gasoline engines.

[happyslug]

15. I am comparing POUNDS not VOLUME, Density and Volume are related

More a difference on HOW things are measured then any real dispute.

[A Simple Game]

17. OK, just that people don't usually associate liquid fuel with pounds. n/t

[happyslug]

12. Your Comment, reminded me of my Father's comment on the John Deere engine he used in 1930s

My father always remembered those John Deere, ONE cylinder, over 400 CC engines (i.e about 6.0 Liters). They went Bang-Bang-Bang. Had plenty of power AND known for their power.


http://www.oldengine.org/members/cmsgma/99show/Clark2.html

At the bottom of the following cite, you can see the "advantages" of a two Cylinder Engine over engines with Four and Six Cylinder (John Deer switched from Two Cylinder to four and six in 1959, but it is nice to see how they wrote up the advantages of the Two over the Four and Six):
http://www.antiquefarming.com/johndeere.html

The simplicity of the John Deere two-cylinder tractor is, in itself, an assurance of longer life and more dependable service. But this is only half of the story. By greatly reducing the total number of parts, John Deere engineers have been able to make each remaining part heavier and stronger. In the John Deere Model "D", for instance, the 155-pound crankshaft is of 3-1/2-inch chrome nickel steel, drop forged. The assembly of crankshaft, flywheel, and belt pulley weighs 526 pounds. The two main bearings are 5 inches long and have a bearing surface of 94 square inches. These larger parts have more wear in them; they last much longer. This sturdy, heavy construction follows right on through the entire tractor--gears, splines, bearings, connecting rods, axles all parts are built strong to give you a tractor that will deliver years of trouble-free service.

Simple as only a two-cylinder tractor can be

By its very nature, John Deere' s two-cylinder engine is simple. There are only two cylinders, two pistons, and two connecting rods, instead of four or six; four valves, in place of eight or twelve; ten rings, as against sixteen or twenty-four. Such simplicity is inherent in any two-cylinder engine, but John Deere engineers have gone a step further and carried this simplicity right on through the entire tractor, eliminating hundreds of parts that would otherwise require adjustment, wear out, and eventually have to be replaced. The heavy, one-piece casting that serves as a crank case also contains the entire final drive and transmission. The cylinder block is bolted to the front end of this case. The belt pulley is right on the end of the crankshaft. The clutch is located inside the belt pulley. The flywheel is mounted on the other end of the crankshaft, and serves as a starting crank. Frankly, could any tractor be simpler, more easily understood, more easily taken care of, or give greater assurance of long, dependable, low-cost service?

[Nihil]

5. Good news on the main topic ...

(Edited to remove original query re Fiat as I'd remembered
wrongly ... :blush: )

Still, the Ford news is great and definitely worth a K & R!

:toast:

[madokie]

7. Yup the news that ford is building and planning to use the eco-boost engine

across the board is good news to me too. My f150 has a 5.4 liter engine in it and they are replacing that with an eco-boost engine that will blow my f150s doors off and get about twice the mile per gallon while doing it. Direct fuel injection, high compression turbo charged is the future in internal combustion engines no doubt about that. :hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Just to correct the linked article, the Fiat delivers 85hp from 900cc, not 1.4 litres

http://www.autoholiks.com/2010/02/fiat-previews-twin-air-twin-cylinder-85-bhp-engine-ahead-of-geneva-debut/

They tend to compare it with a 1.4 litre engine.

[Kolesar]

16. Yes, I was wondering about that