backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by cruisin3style.. on Feb 5 at 6:53 AM

The U.S. Fiesta will have the same engine available

While hybrid vehicles and EVs continue to grab many headlines in the automotive industry, automakers like Ford are making huge strides in fuel efficiency using engines that are smaller displacement with turbos rather than battery packs. The interesting part is that the smaller displacement engines have the potential for better fuel economy than some hybrids.
 
Ford has officially launched a new small displacement turbocharged engine displacing 1L that was developed in the UK. The small engine is part of the EcoBoost line and promises fuel economy of up to 56.5 miles per gallon along with low CO2 emissions in the area of 114g/km. The first use of the small three-cylinder engine will be in the European version of the Ford Focus. We will also see the engine in the Ford Fiesta in United States.
 
"The new 1.0-litre EcoBoost and our entire family of EcoBoost engines – represent technology breakthroughs that deliver power, fuel efficiency and low CO2 emissions through turbocharging and direct injection,” Alan Mulally said. “These engines are delivering the fuel-efficient vehicles customers want and value."
 
 
The three-cylinder engine with EcoBoost tech attached is as powerful as a traditional 1.6L four-cylinder. The engine is also impressively small, Ford claims the cylinder block can fit onto a sheet of A4 paper and can still deliver 125hp and 125 lb-ft of torque.
 
“The new 1.0-litre EcoBoost engine is a true collaboration from start to finish, with expertise from Ford specialists across Europe leveraged in designing both the engine and the cutting-edge facility in which it will be produced,” said Stephen Odell, chairman and CEO, Ford of Europe.
 

The 1.0-liter engine will eventually find its way into the U.S. market Fiesta
 
Ford has invested £110 million in an assembly line at the Cologne Engine Plant where the new three-cylinder EcoBoost engine will be constructed. The plant has 870 employees and can build up to 350,000 of the new EcoBoost engines each year. The three-cylinder EcoBoost should be huge in the UK and around Europe where fuel costs are much higher than our fuel prices in the U.S. 

Sources: Ford, The Telegraph



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

For <d>
By kensiko on 1/31/2012 11:09:07 AM , Rating: 2
In the second paragraph I think a <d> is missing at the first word.

About the news, I think it's great. But all depends on the durability of the motor.




RE: For <d>
By GotThumbs on 1/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: For <d>
By GruntboyX on 1/31/2012 12:58:00 PM , Rating: 3
I cant help myself, I am going to feed the troll here.

While, I cant defend the majority of bimbos on the cellphone in an SUV. I will say that it is very narrow minded of you to assume we just love our over-sized cars for the sake of "bigger is better".

Infrastructure is a huge factor. We live in the suburbs. Our roads are wider than yours. They were built on horse trails from the 1800's not city alleys from the dark ages. We also have less government services than you do. For instance, I have to haul my own trash to the dump. And even at 4 dollars a gallon its cheaper for me to drive a truck than it is to drive a fiesta, and rent a truck for those occasions.

Whats really funny is the last time I was in Europe, as you moved to the suburbs the vehicles got bigger. The difference being, more people live in urban environments in Europe than rural or suburban environments.

The funnier thing was, A European co-worker of mine was moving back after fulfilling his contract. Guess what went with him? That's right the Big Ugly American Mini-Van. The little European car he originally brought with him.... donated for scrap metal with the proceeds going to American Cancer Society.


RE: For <d>
By Aloonatic on 1/31/12, Rating: 0
RE: For <d>
By danjw1 on 1/31/2012 4:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
"The funnier thing was, A European co-worker of mine was moving back after fulfilling his contract. Guess what went with him? That's right the Big Ugly American Mini-Van. The little European car he originally brought with him.... donated for scrap metal with the proceeds going to American Cancer Society."

Fealing guilty about all those carcinogens that he was going to be putting into the air? :-)


RE: For <d>
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/2012 3:20:52 PM , Rating: 4
What kind of absurd broad-strokes nationalistic crap is this? Are you just trolling?

quote:
You'll know that Europeans are able to run their cars at high speeds for long periods (legally).


Yeeeah, until you get to a city. Where you'll find tiny cobblestoned roads, usually one lane only. That's when you aren't trying to share it with a trolly lol.

http://www.letsgo-europe.com/czech/pilsen/city_str...

LOL oh yeah, looks like a real high speed experience there.

quote:
Cars are for transportation...and when Americans realize that, we'll have more cars with better fuel economy.


????

The most fuel efficient cars on the planet right now are mostly coming from America you idiot.

SUV bashing was so 2007. Grow up please, you are so small-minded.


RE: For <d>
By Aloonatic on 2/1/2012 3:15:15 AM , Rating: 1
Have you ever been to Europe? I mean the bit where people really live, drive round and go to work, not just the historic touristy areas that make up a tiny fraction of the roads here, as your comment suggests that you haven't and that you don't have a clue about what you are blithering on about.

Europe is full of high speed roads with speed limits higher than in many places in the US, some even unlimited.

I did enjoy your attacking someone for being nationalistic too. A saying about a pot and a kettle springs to mind.


RE: For <d>
By Jeffk464 on 1/31/2012 6:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
Its small but it sure is purddy.


Unclear Headline
By lightfoot on 1/31/2012 2:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
You mention the Ford Focus in the headline, but everywhere else in the article you talk about the Ford Fiesta.

A 1L engine in the Fiesta should be fine, but the Focus is a significantly different car.

Exactly which vehicle are you talking about??




RE: Unclear Headline
By Jeffk464 on 1/31/2012 6:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
The ford focus is around 3000lbs, I can't imagine 125hp would be to good. The focus is going to be pretty damn exciting with the 2.0L ecoboost though.


RE: Unclear Headline
By titanmiller on 1/31/2012 8:21:29 PM , Rating: 1
A Focus isn't supposed to be a sports car. 125hp in a car that size is plenty for all normal driving to include mountain passes.


RE: Unclear Headline
By cruisin3style on 2/5/2012 6:53:27 AM , Rating: 2
I own a 2010 Mazda 3 that was made with Ford technology from when Ford owned a stake in Mazda. I'm not an expert on Fords or Mazdas but if I remember right the 3 is seriously damn close to being a european Ford Focus (and not the crappy American version we had until recently).

Anyway, the 3 has 149(?, yeah it is sad i used to be a car guy and don't know lol) horsepower and similar torque and it struggles sometimes in 5th gear (in a 5-speed manual)...if i'm going uphill on a highway or 50mph speed limit parkway and don't give a hefty amount of extra throttle the speed will quickly drop 10mph...and we aren't even talking about that steep of an incline. 125hp would probably be a stretch for a 3000lb car.. at least where I live in the suburbs of Virginia near Wash DC


RE: Unclear Headline
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/31/2012 7:40:28 PM , Rating: 2
It's being introduced in Europe first with the Focus.

However, for the U.S. market, it will debut in the Fiesta.


GSXR-smart
By bebimbap on 1/31/2012 12:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
you haven't seen what a 1L engine can do 'till you've seen a gsxr-smart or busa-smart. look it up on youtube.

it can do more donuts than a 400lbs government employee




RE: GSXR-smart
By GruntboyX on 1/31/2012 12:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
I dont know... The DMV can really pound the donuts..... I see a Top Gear Challenge


RE: GSXR-smart
By Jeffk464 on 1/31/2012 6:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah but your talking a 500lbs vehicle.


125 lb-ft of torque...
By kjboughton on 1/31/2012 7:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
I assume this is peak TQ.

Show us a torque curve, please.

I would wager a bet that 125 ft-lbs of torque means the engine is screaming at 6k rpm...




RE: 125 lb-ft of torque...
By ahar on 2/1/2012 4:12:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
...it delivers 170Nm of torque, or 200Nm with overboost, with peak torque available from 1400rpm right through to 4500rpm.

Source:
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/green-motoring/20...


Great! progress in progress
By Binkt on 1/31/2012 2:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'd love to see one in a boat. Small boats could be made more roomy and lighter. Constant RPM is where this engine could really shine.




Some tech
By EddyKilowatt on 1/31/2012 3:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
Quick google turns up this summary of the first-generation Ecoboost. Pretty interesting stuff.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/04/developing...

Still looking for the torque and power curves. Well-managed turbo engines can have torque curves that are impressively fat at the low end. </FreddyMercury>




how to fit in engine bay?
By thelostjs on 1/31/2012 7:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
is this engine five feet tall or what? bring out the hood scoop! this engine would never work in a motorcycle.
do you think they will keep the ford blue anodized block?
geo had a 3cylinder and theysa plenty of them.




LETS ALL BE HONEST...
By letmepicyou on 2/1/2012 10:40:38 AM , Rating: 2
Lets be completely honest. Every single person here wants to see what this engine will do when strapped to a Go-Kart.
EVERYONE.




higher profits
By Uncle on 2/1/2012 10:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
"The three-cylinder EcoBoost should be huge in the UK and around Europe where fuel costs are much higher than our fuel prices in the U.S."
Which is why its not in the US, even tho most Americans that have become third world citizens would welcome the Ford Focus.




Hope this makes it to the US
By aguilpa1 on 1/31/2012 5:10:10 PM , Rating: 1
I have always wanted to have a turbo engine on my motorcycle. I think it would be great fun.




Huh?
By Argon18 on 1/31/12, Rating: 0
Boring
By Ammohunt on 1/31/12, Rating: 0
Sorry
By FITCamaro on 1/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: Sorry
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/31/2012 10:57:40 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, but a Fiesta only weighs less than 2600 pounds. 125hp and 125 lb-ft (at lower RPMs) is better than the 1.6-liter four-banger in the current U.S. Fiesta (120hp, 112 lb-ft).

Lighter, smaller engine; more power; more torque; greater fuel economy. I don't understand what's left to b!tch about?!


RE: Sorry
By RU482 on 1/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: Sorry
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/31/2012 11:26:38 AM , Rating: 3
Says who?

Is that supposed to be a knock against turbo'd cars or a knock against Ford... I can't tell :)

Turbocharged vehicles have been around for decades. And everyone swears by turbocharged diesels in full-size pickups; yet somehow a turbocharged gasoline engine in a less-stress consumer application is all of a sudden S A T A N!!!


RE: Sorry
By Spuke on 1/31/2012 1:06:36 PM , Rating: 5
I'll venture a guess and say this engine will be bulletproof. The reason? It'll be in boost most of the time. If it's in boost most of the time, the engine will have to be able to deal with the added stress. If it indeed turns out to be as reliable as I suspect, I may buy one down the road to use as a beater and mod the Solstice up into 500 hp range.


RE: Sorry
By woofersus on 1/31/2012 12:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
There are a lot of factors that matter more than power-to-weight ratio that determine engine longevity. Turbos have been made reliable by the addition of direct injection and have been made more effective by variable valve timing. Today's turbo engines actually tend to have a broader torque curve than many naturally aspirated engines and would allow the car to cruise at lower rpm's.

And there were absolutely reasons other than size for those 1980's minivans to have premature engine failure.


RE: Sorry
By jabber on 2/1/2012 7:09:18 AM , Rating: 1
Whats with all this replacing engines crap?

I've lived for 40 years in the UK and I only remember one person I know ever having to replace the whole engine in their car. That was due to fitting an after-market turbo kit to it which he was advised against.

The main reason was it was going to be cheaper to just fit a new engine that try to sort out the mess he made.

I've racked up 150k+ on most of my cars and all of them have been less than 1700cc. They all went on to other owners.

This isnt 1955 anymore.

Currently driving a 1.1L car with just 55hp. It will still do 110mph and out accelerates most cars around town. Its a blast.

Remember these are commuter cars!


RE: Sorry
By FITCamaro on 1/31/12, Rating: 0
RE: Sorry
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/31/2012 11:24:27 AM , Rating: 2
Well, more power to ya then ;) Don't buy it. You'd never by a car this small, so I don't understand why you're so concerned anyway ;)

A Cruze weighs 3000 pounds, a Fiesta is over 400 pound lighter. The Fiesta is a subcompact. The Cruze is a compact that is actually damn near midsize.

Of course it should come with a smaller engine.


RE: Sorry
By VERBW on 1/31/2012 11:45:59 AM , Rating: 3
Have to add here, I have a 3 cylinder, 1.2 litre engine in my Skoda Fabia, and it runs fine. Generates a lot less power / torque than this engine, and does pretty much everything I need it to do.

It's a bit loud on the motorway above 70, but I drive at 65 most of the time anyway.

I would certainly have no problems with my engine. It seems very well suited for the UK market, so congratulations to Ford. If you need a V8 truck, buy a V8 truck.


RE: Sorry
By mcnabney on 1/31/2012 11:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
Don't worry. I'll buy his.

My 2002 Sentra is probably going to need to be replaced soon. I LOVE small cars - and high fuel efficiency and low vehicle prices are my top two features when car shopping. I hope they keep the snazy Fiesta green paint available.

Also, Fit's rant about minivans is fairly inaccurate. My wife's car is a Mazda5 - which is a positively tiny minivan propelled by the same four cylinder engine as the Mazda3. It is also about the same size as the original Caravans - seriously. Modern minivans are goliaths compared to the original versions in the 80s. While a modern van needs a V6, the old ones didn't.


RE: Sorry
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/31/2012 11:54:45 AM , Rating: 2
Yup, the Mazda5 is roughly the exact same size as the first generation Caravan. If I had to buy a minivan, it would be the only one I'd choose. As you said, the current "minivans" -- aka Odyssey, Sienna, Quest -- are 4500-pound behemoths!

Funny enough though, the Sienna is actually available with a 2.7-liter, 187hp four-cylinder engine :)


RE: Sorry
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/2012 5:06:52 PM , Rating: 1
lol if you think the Sentra is small just wait until you squeeze into a Fiesta :) Better keep a can opener in the glovebox just in case :P

I'm neither for or against this engine. For me it wouldn't work because I do a fair bit of city driving. And I can't pretend that a tiny engine with a turbo would be anything other than tedious driving in traffic. But Europeans love that kind of crap, so this is a good move for Ford business wise.

The other dealbreaker for me is that it isn't a Subaru :P


RE: Sorry
By Spuke on 1/31/2012 5:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Better keep a can opener in the glovebox just in case :P
Can openers are sooooo 2011. I use PAM. Organic, of course. ;)


RE: Sorry
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/2012 5:58:59 PM , Rating: 1
LMAO Spuke :)

You left out CFC free :P


RE: Sorry
By FITCamaro on 1/31/2012 8:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
4 cylinder minivans of the 80s were pieces of crap that ended up getting poor fuel efficiency and burning oil because the engines weren't big enough to properly lug the car around.


RE: Sorry
By 0ldman on 2/1/2012 10:10:23 AM , Rating: 2
That was from the same time frame that Ford thought putting a tiny 2bbl carb and crappy exhaust on a 302 was how you separate the performance and family car markets.

Ford 2100 2bbl carb actually got worse mileage and power than the 4bbl at anything over 45mph.

HP/Torque ratings for the 302 was about 150HP/230Lbs at the same time as those crappy minivans. Chevy and Dodge were the same way. It wasn't just because the engine was small, it was because the people running the business were small minded. Gearheads know you can improve efficiency and power and the automotive industry in the US is just now figuring that out.


RE: Sorry
By FITCamaro on 2/1/2012 10:43:52 AM , Rating: 2
The problem was that electronic fuel injection back then was in its infancy. Computers weren't powerful enough and sensors weren't refined enough to create powerful engines with good efficiency. Plus you had new emissions equipment that was further restricting what they could do with the technology of the time.


RE: Sorry
By nafhan on 1/31/2012 1:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
Not so long ago people would have said the same thing about the 1.4L engine in the Cruze... It's the future, man. :)

As this is a new product, it might be good to wait a little and see what the reliability is like, but there's really no reason why this could not be engine. If the reliability is decent, this is pretty much better all around than a hybrid with similar MPG and HP numbers.


RE: Sorry
By Concillian on 1/31/2012 4:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
As a Turbo car owner myself, torque ratings on turbo vehicles can be misleading. Sure, my car has plenty of torque when the turbo is spooled up, but out of the gate and driving around town, there is something to be said for always on N/A torque. You have to take peak torque ratings on a turbo car with a grain of salt. With mods and ignition & fuel tuning I've taken my car from 160ish foot pounds at the wheels to 270ish foot-pounds at the wheels, but if driven like a commuter and not like a boy racer, you'd barely notice a difference, because that torque difference only happens when floored and above 3500 RPM.

There are a lot of ways to use a turbo, and peak torque doesn't tell you much on a turbo car. Off-boost torque is important, and it's likely that [i]unless you're driving the piss out of the turbo engine[/i], the 120HP / 112 ft-lbs 1.6L engine is significantly peppier around town than this 125 / 125 1.0L turbo.


RE: Sorry
By Spuke on 1/31/2012 5:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
NA cars don't make peak torque or anywhere close to that at low rpms either. Take a look at any of the widely available dyno graphs of NA and turbo cars. You'll notice that both start low, rise, flatten out, then drop. Some stay flat longer than others depends on the engine design goal.


RE: Sorry
By Spuke on 1/31/2012 6:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
Another thing, with direct injection off boost throttle response is excellent so around town driveability shouldn't suffer any.


RE: Sorry
By Calin on 2/1/2012 5:09:01 AM , Rating: 2
I have a 1.6 l Opel Astra from 2000 (naturally aspirated) and peak torque is at 2600 rpm. My previous car (1992 Passat) had peak torque at 2400 rpm - both are gasoline engines, naturally aspirated.


RE: Sorry
By lagomorpha on 1/31/2012 11:24:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I would never buy a 1L engine in any vehicle.


Nonsense, I have a 1L engine in my motorcycle and it works great.

Joking aside, your concern about overworking isn't really valid. Smaller displacement cylinders do not always imply weaker main bearings or thinner rings. Just look at the 660cc Japanese K-car engines that seem reliable enough. I am a bit concerned about the vibration from an I3, even those 660cc engines are often I4s.


RE: Sorry
By Stiggalicious on 1/31/2012 12:05:49 PM , Rating: 1
Minivans of the 80's were above 4000 lbs. The Fiesta with its current engine is 2600 lbs. I drive a Scion xD with its 128hp 4-cylinder which weighs about the same, and unless you're loaded with 5 people and a trailer in the back, 128hp is plenty enough. Remember the Camaros of the late 80's? A 5-liter engine producing less than 200hp? Now look at the difference.
Sure, the Smart cars of today are running on 3-cylinder motorcycle engines that last 35000 miles, but the Ecoboost line is brand-new from the ground-up. With the amount of R&D done with turbochargers these days, I can see this engine lasting a quarter million miles. Even turboed 4-cylinders of the 90's last that long, so why wouldn't this?
The power is not an issue with this new engine, the torque is not an issue with this new engine. the longevity is not an issue with this new engine, and the lower weight is not an issue either.


RE: Sorry
By lagomorpha on 2/1/2012 12:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can see this engine lasting a quarter million miles. Even turboed 4-cylinders of the 90's last that long, so why wouldn't this?


Don't get carried away, it is still made by Ford.


fine for Europe
By talikarni on 1/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: fine for Europe
By Egglick on 1/31/2012 11:32:54 AM , Rating: 3
Your comment shows a fair bit of ignorance. The fact that the engine is physically smaller doesn't change the inside dimensions of the Fiesta, or its safety on the road. I'm 6'4 myself, and the Fiesta is fairly comfortable. I've been much less comfortable in larger vehicles. There are also larger vehicles which are less safe. You could probably walk away from several types of accidents in a Fiesta which would have been fatal in your '79 Chevy.

125hp/125ft-lb is also by no means weak for a light car, nor is it going to roll backwards down a hill. This is only slightly less power than many smaller V6's were putting out in the early-mid 90's.


RE: fine for Europe
By Spuke on 1/31/2012 3:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
Most V6's in the 90's were putting out more than 125hp. That was 4 cyl territory even then. I agree that 125hp (with 125 lb-ft of torque...a number that none of those cars had) in a 2600 lb car is not horrible. I had 140 in my 92 Sentra SE-R (2500 lbs), the base cars were 110 hp. My car was decidedly more fun but the base car wasn't that bad. I wouldn't buy the Fiesta as my primary car BUT it does suit others needs quite nicely.

PS - Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and has the right to device what's best for themselves. I'm NOT one of those people that thinks we shouldn't have the right to choose or even that choice should be limited.


RE: fine for Europe
By Scrote on 1/31/2012 11:33:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure it is fine for Europe with its small congested roads and smaller (height and body size) population


That statement is rooted in ignorance.

http://www.wisegeek.com/which-country-has-the-tall...

http://www.gettingaroundgermany.info/autobahn.shtm...


RE: fine for Europe
By werfu on 1/31/2012 11:38:33 AM , Rating: 2
Small doesn't automatically mean cramped. The engine is smaller, mean the engine bay will be smaller, leaving more space for the cabin. Car design has really improved in the last 10 years and ergonomic is now considered an important feature, especially in smaller car.


RE: fine for Europe
By woofersus on 1/31/2012 12:31:51 PM , Rating: 1
Your '79 Chevy got that kind of mileage because it was probably lighter and significantly less safe than the '12 Fiesta. Also, that 1.8L, 4 cyl. engine probably produced about half the power of this 1L 3cyl.

Besides all that, the article was talking about the Focus in Europe, which isn't even an A segment vehicle.

Every time there is an article about a new engine and it's power efficiency or fuel efficiency people whip out the apples-to-oranges comparisons to some car they had decades ago. Aside from the fact that today's small cars are light years ahead in refinement, driving dynamics, and safety, cars in general are way heavier and more powerful today due to safety regulations and consumer demand for power. The same goes for large vehicles, like full sized pickups. You can't look at fuel consumption alone and make a judgement.


RE: fine for Europe
By woofersus on 1/31/2012 1:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
Since you apparently think I'm wrong, I did some research. The '79 Luv was rated at a whopping 80hp. A 125HP 1L engine would have been a huge performance gain. Also, both 2wd and 4x4 variants weighed less than the Fiesta, (but not more than 100lbs, so the power-to-weight ration of the Fiesta is still way better) so mileage would have been even better than the 56mpg estimated by Ford. The Luv was EPA rated at 35mpg as a comparison, regarless of what anecdotal numbers are seen - maybe driving like a granny could squeeze 28% better than EPA rated mileage from the Fiesta too?

http://www.luvtruck.com/pdf/79Dlr-Brochure.pdf


RE: fine for Europe
By FaceMaster on 1/31/12, Rating: 0
RE: fine for Europe
By ihateu3 on 1/31/2012 11:10:46 PM , Rating: 1
Also I find it funny you point out the Isuzu engine in your Chevy LUV, instead of being aware that the whole damn vehicle was Isuzu, not just the engine!! lol


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki