1.0 litre focus any body ?

Nissan doctor

carbon nanotube wrote: »

just a reminder how engines looked before the world went f***ed up.!

That would be the joy of Hydrogen engines....they are still the same design as today, but run on hydrogen rather then petrol/diesel.

carbon nanotube

and offer 90bhp instead of 600+ bhp..

remember i sat into an 850Csi in cork , mechanic over near the gaa grounds was working on it, only now do i realise what a special car that was.

Nissan doctor

carbon nanotube wrote: »

and offer 90bhp instead of 600+ bhp..

remember i sat into an 850Csi in cork , mechanic over near the gaa grounds was working on it, only know do i realise what a special car that was.

BMW and others already have hydrogen engines running the same sort of power as petrols. The are vastly less economical then petrols currently, hence it being 20 years before the development evens everything up.

AugustusMinimus

Nissan doctor wrote: »

BMW and others already have hydrogen engines running the same sort of power as petrols. The are vastly less economical then petrols currently, hence it being 20 years before the development evens everything up.

BMW have an internal combustion engine running on hydrogen.

However, this has nothing to do with future hydrogen engines. Honda have a fully working hydrogen fuel cell car called the Honda FCX Clarity.

The problem is that it costs about €80k. I have no doubt that within 10 years, hydrogen fuel cell cars will be affordable. The problem is where do you produce the vast amount of hydrogen needed and to put the hydrogen infrastructure in place.

Electrolysis of water is prob inefficient and you would need to generate electricity to do it. There's the possibility of making hydrogen from natural gas. Transporting it to fuel stations may also be problematic. It would need to be transported in liquid state.

Nissan doctor

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

BMW have an internal combustion engine running on hydrogen.

However, this has nothing to do with future hydrogen engines. Honda have a fully working hydrogen fuel cell car called the Honda FCX Clarity.

The problem is that it costs about €80k. I have no doubt that within 10 years, hydrogen fuel cell cars will be affordable. The problem is where do you produce the vast amount of hydrogen needed and to put the hydrogen infrastructure in place.

Electrolysis of water is prob inefficient and you would need to generate electricity to do it. There's the possibility of making hydrogen from natural gas. Transporting it to fuel stations may also be problematic. It would need to be transported in liquid state.

Yes the clarity has been on the go since 08ish. Its the Production/supply/storage of hydrogen for mass distribution that's the current issue....but no more then Producing/supplying/storage of petrol was 100 years ago.

Mister Jingles

Anyone know if this engine marks the end of the 1.25 ? Or if it will even be put into the Fiesta ? Can't seem to find much on the net.

dr.fuzzenstein

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

BMW have an internal combustion engine running on hydrogen.

However, this has nothing to do with future hydrogen engines. Honda have a fully working hydrogen fuel cell car called the Honda FCX Clarity.

The problem is that it costs about €80k. I have no doubt that within 10 years, hydrogen fuel cell cars will be affordable. The problem is where do you produce the vast amount of hydrogen needed and to put the hydrogen infrastructure in place.

Electrolysis of water is prob inefficient and you would need to generate electricity to do it. There's the possibility of making hydrogen from natural gas. Transporting it to fuel stations may also be problematic. It would need to be transported in liquid state.

I think Ireland has the clear advantage here, hydrogen could be manufactured here using wind and wave power, that way it wouldn't matter that there's not always wind or waves, the fuel could be stored and used later.
As for water? I think we got that sorted!:D
Maybe Ireland will be a major producer of hydrogen and exporting it, we're gonna be rich! Rich I tells ya!

Leonard Hofstadter

Those videos about the 1.0 Ecoboost are fascinating.

There is a lot of new technology in that engine to try and overcome the drawbacks of using a small capacity turbocharged engine, such as failing to match claimed mpgs, lag etc.

What they've done with the offset flywheel is really really clever. Similarly the cooling system is also innovative.

If this engine proves to be much better at matching its claimed fuel consumption than say the Fiat Twinair engine and proves to be as reliable as a traditional engine (or even nearly as reliable) then it really will shake things up.

In the longer term diesel will lose popularity, because from 2014 there will be all sorts of expensive technology required to get diesels to pass the Euro 6 emissions standards. While Euro 6 will make petrols more expensive, relative to diesels the increase in price will be very minor indeed. The cost gap between petrol and diesel will widen, and thereby will reduce the popularity of diesels in smaller cars. I don't think there will be any change in larger cars (Avensis/Mondeo upwards) because they cost more in the first place so another grand on something that costs €30k isn't really that much of a change, whereas on a Fiesta or the likes another grand is a huge jump in price. Petrol will regain popularity in cars like the Focus and Fiesta in the next few years.

Elessar

VW introduced the small displacement high torque petrol engine initially a few years ago, initially with a 1.4 TSI (122bhp and 200nm torque) and more recently with the 1.2 TSI (105bhp, 175nm torque).

Here's a video explaining the 1.2 TSI engine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY91c8JCwv0

Ford are following suit and most other manufacturers will do the same.

I have the 1.2TSI in my Golf and didn't even consider it before I test drove it. It's a fantastic engine, very economical with lots of poke. The Ford engine is also very impressive, and I can see it being just a great to drive. I can see VW following suit with a 1.0L TSI. Innovation in petrol is gaining pace. Already from this year the 1.4TSI will come with the ability to automatically shut down two cylinders and run on only the other two, during relaxed driving, to save more fuel. Petrol is coming back.

BostonB

captainspeed wrote: »

....In the longer term diesel will lose popularity, because from 2014 there will be all sorts of expensive technology required to get diesels to pass the Euro 6 emissions standards....

They have a 1.3 turbo diesel to the Euro 5 standard. What adds all the expense to get it to Euro 6?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTD_engine

ShadowHearth

To be honest lads, if the age of v8 and l6 is gone then I would love to see this to replace it, then age of diesel which is falsely made cleaner co2 with filters.

I really like the new small turbo charged Opel petrol engines. 1.4/1.6 turbo sounds alot of fun.

Leonard Hofstadter

Three cylinder engines can sound pretty nice too, they've certainly got a lot more character than fours. A good three cylinder engine can be made sound very like a six, especially at higher revs, a Peugeot 107 at around 5500 rpm does a very good impression of a V6.

Honestly if this new 1.0 Ecoboost is as good as they say it is for ordinary cars then it makes a hell of a lot more sense than diesel and traditional petrol engines.

Petrol is making a comeback, no doubt about it.

I just hope that we won't see the reliability problems that modern diesels suffer from, there's a lot to be said for a simple naturally aspirated petrol engine in that regard. Thing is though because petrol engines don't need anything like the boost a diesel does for the extra power the engines shouldn't be under a whole lot more stress than the NA equivalent, so especially for the lower power density derivatives there is no reason to fear about them being less reliable if they've been properly designed.

That's surprising about the 1.2 TSI, only eight valves in this day and age :eek:? I thought two valves per cylinder engines had long since disappeared - 16 valves in a four has been the norm for the past 20 years (remember the 90s when "16V" was as important then as a car being in VRT band A is now)!

r3nu4l

Don't forget that Fiat have been trying to do good work with smaller engines for a few years now too The 1.4 petrol Bravo puts out 140 bhp. This is over 4 years ago so I'm looking forward to what they will do next.

Elessar

captainspeed wrote: »

That's surprising about the 1.2 TSI, only eight valves in this day and age :eek:? I thought two valves per cylinder engines had long since disappeared - 16 valves in a four has been the norm for the past 20 years (remember the 90s when "16V" was as important then as a car being in VRT band A is now)!

It's all about reducing frictional losses. Four valves per piston requires two overhead camshafts. That is to say, more friction. 8V systems require only one. This is especially important in low displacement engines compared to larger ones. In the past it was more important, but with smaller engines with attached turbos and direct injection, not so much any more.

Leonard Hofstadter

Elessar wrote: »

It's all about reducing frictional losses. Four valves per piston requires two overhead camshafts. That is to say, more friction. 8V systems require only one. This is especially important in low displacement engines compared to larger ones. In the past it was more important, but with smaller engines with attached turbos and direct injection, not so much any more.

Better not tell those pesky Honda engineers who have managed to make 16 valve VTEC engines with single cams for the past 20+ years then:pac:!

The real reason for two valves per cylinder and the single overhead cam is cost, having a single cam and only two valves per cylinder saves them money:)! It's the same reason the new 1.0 Ecoboost is made out of cast iron rather than aluminium ! Direct injection and turbocharging don't come cheap.

Bigus

Ford have a 177bhp 1.0l version of the new engine testing at the moment according to car magazine

Nissan doctor

Elessar wrote: »

It's all about reducing frictional losses. Four valves per piston requires two overhead camshafts. That is to say, more friction. 8V systems require only one. This is especially important in low displacement engines compared to larger ones. In the past it was more important, but with smaller engines with attached turbos and direct injection, not so much any more.

There are dozens of engines out there with 4 valves per cylinder and a single camshaft.

Leonard Hofstadter

Nissan doctor wrote: »

There are dozens of engines out there with 4 valves per cylinder and a single camshaft.

You're about an hour and a half behind me on making that point:pac::D!

Nissan doctor

Nissan doctor wrote: »

There are dozens of engines out there with 4 valves per cylinder and a single camshaft.

Indeed, excellent point ND

mad muffin

RoverJames wrote: »

Indeed, excellent point ND

Here's a tissue…there's something brown around your nose…:p

Plug

All the new Ford petrol engines will incorporate the same technology. The 1.0, 1.6 and the 2.0 will have:
Turbo's
Variable valve timing.
Electronically controlled thermostat.
Variable displacement oil pump.
Direct fuel injection.

The 1.0 block is obviously all new but the 1.6 and 2.0 are based on present engines with significant changes. At least now green cars will have an extra few thousand revs to play with. I wonder will they start bringing in nox accumulators for all these modern petrol engines to meat Euro 6 emissions?

Mister Jingles

captainspeed wrote: »

Three cylinder engines can sound pretty nice too, they've certainly got a lot more character than fours. A good three cylinder engine can be made sound very like a six, especially at higher revs, a Peugeot 107 at around 5500 rpm does a very good impression of a V6.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItDsdzE_RtU

I must say, I do like

Voodoomelon

I'm not too hot on my injection systems, but what's the fuss about direct injection on a 3 cylinder petrol engine? Is it not normally used? I thought pretty much every modern petrol was direct injection?

Nissan doctor

Voodoomelon wrote: »

I'm not too hot on my injection systems, but what's the fuss about direct injection on a 3 cylinder petrol engine? Is it not normally used? I thought pretty much every modern petrol was direct injection?

Only a lot of the latest generation of engines are direct injection. There have been a few older engines that used it...Mitsubishi's GDI engines from 10 or more years ago used it.

On most normal injection systems the fuel injectors are mounted in the inlet manifold and inject the fuel into the manifold before the valves, as opposed to directly into the combustion chamber as direct injection does.

Bigus

captainspeed wrote: »

Better not tell those pesky Honda engineers who have managed to make 16 valve VTEC engines with single cams for the past 20+ years then:pac:!

The real reason for two valves per cylinder and the single overhead cam is cost, having a single cam and only two valves per cylinder saves them money:)! It's the same reason the new 1.0 Ecoboost is made out of cast iron rather than aluminium ! Direct injection and turbocharging don't come cheap.

The cast iron block is not to save money ... It expands and contracts at the same rate as the iron crankshaft meaning ford can use less bearings and tighter tolerances leading to less fristion.
Iron block also suits the very long stroke of the engine and can handle higher turbo pressures.
Iron in this set up is lighter than aluminium !

This appears a very clever engine, the look of the block reminds me of Japanese bike engines (even though recent bike engines are almost exclusively made of alloy).

There are very clever marketing videos of Ford engines on the youtube. The F150 EcoBoost torture test 1...5 with the subsequent live tear down is very confidence inspiring. I know it's a totally different engine but I wouldn't be surprised if lots of ideas are the same in all of them.

Wonder if during freeze/thaw cycles during the dyno bit at the start confirms an internet rumour that heat cycling a new engine is a must. In general it would also be easy to run in the engine at optimum run cycle in a dyno, improving the odds that the motor survives the full test series. Nevertheless this engine tech is very impressive stuff. After my initial skepticism regarding the planned 180ish PS 1.0 it looks like we may have a winner there.

Great marketing, Ford.

Anan1

Has anyone else ever lubricated a timing belt with engine oil?

Henry Ford III

Anan1 wrote: »

Has anyone else ever lubricated a timing belt with engine oil?

You'd better hope not

Nissan doctor

Anan1 wrote: »

Has anyone else ever lubricated a timing belt with engine oil?

Huh??

Oil + rubber is not a good combination.

Anan1

Anan1 wrote: »

Has anyone else ever lubricated a timing belt with engine oil?

Is that happening in one of the videos linked to in this thread or something?
I haven't looked at any of them tbh.

Anan1

Have a look here, from about 2:08 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t908YJRebw&feature=player_embedded

According to google, Dayco developed a belt suitable to use in oil bath for VW back in 2010. It is used to drive an oil pump in some diesel engine. Similar belts are also used in industrial equipment.

Plug

Anan1 wrote: »

Has anyone else ever lubricated a timing belt with engine oil?

Some Ford 1.8 diesels have 2 timing belts in them and the bottom one is submerged in oil. Impossible to tell if it has two belts unless you do a good bit of striping:(

This new one however should last the life time of the engine. However I don't think I'd trust a belt to do massive mileage.

GavMan

It's here....

BostonB

Good review. Bit wary of version 1.0 tech though for reliability.

Alanstrainor

BostonB wrote: »

Good review. Bit wary of version 1.0 tech though for reliability.

Even still, I think it'll be great little motor. Can't wait to see a video review of it.

BostonB

Love the idea of it alright.

Henry Ford III

GavMan wrote: »

It's here....

It's shown on the UK site car configurator, but not on the Irish version. Quelle surprise!

ShadowHearth

Henry Ford III wrote: »

It's shown on the UK site car configurator, but not on the Irish version. Quelle surprise!

Surely why should it be in Irish configuration!!! It's not flipping diesel!

GavMan

Would reserve judgement till I got to drive it but would certainly suit a small family where running costs are king...

Henry Ford III

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Surely why should it be in Irish configuration!!! It's not flipping diesel!

If the price is right, it'll go well I reckon. Would need to be a couple of thousand € cheaper than the corresponding TDCI model.

ShadowHearth

Henry Ford III wrote: »

If the price is right, it'll go well I reckon. Would need to be a couple of thousand € cheaper than the corresponding TDCI model.

Just read the review and I really like what I hear.

Looks like a good alternative to damn diesel. Almost same mpg, but with no diesels problems. In fact it should be better mpg in real world with short trips. 150kg lighter then 2.0tdi which damn Impresive.
Anyway, I like it do far, bring it on. I will take small turbo/supercharged engines over diesels any day.

conzy

Seems like a cracking little engine, I notice it will be very cheap to tax on the old cc based system (€185) and the new CO2 system (€104).

Cant wait to see what system the government come up with to try and increase the tax on these cars..

Turbo tax?

Plug

The block length is the same as a sheet of A4 paper, and the powertrain weighs 40kg less than the old 1.6 (or a staggering 150kg less than a 2.0 diesel). It's got direct injection and dual variable camshafts, and an absolutely diddy jewel of a turbine that spins up to 248,000rpm.

Some amazing specs from the little engine. Tiny little block the size of an A4 piece of paper and weights considerably less than the other engines. Nearly quarter of a million revs from the turbo, thats over 4100 times it rotates in one second:eek:

Leonard Hofstadter

I can't see them selling too many of them here. It's not powered by diesel, and people who think that a 1.4 NA petrol is sufficient for a Focus are not going to be impressed at the prospect of a considerably smaller engine going in under the bonnet, even though this engine is obviously considerably more powerful.

I remember it being said that people wouldn't buy a 1.4 TSI Passat because the engine in it was "too small" even though it had more power than the 1.6 NA FSI model, and a lot more torque, especially at lower revs:rolleyes:. People had difficulty in accepting an E-class with a 1.8 litre engine (later E200Ks were 1.8s) too as I recall.

Of course, for the vast majority of Focus buyers this engine makes so much more sense than the diesel, and it's supposed to be a cracking engine to drive, so it must be really good, but try telling that to a nation famed for its herd mentality that this makes more sense than an engine with expensive DMF, DPF and EGR valves to go wrong and see how you get on!

Leonard Hofstadter

LIGHTNING wrote: »

They should stick it in the Fiesta or the KA then it would really shine.

The Fiesta is being facelifted later on in the year, so I'd say it will get the new engine when that happens. It will be interesting to see what they do with that venerable little 1.25, one of the best small capacity petrol engines ever made! Ford said that the 1.0 went into the Focus first because it is more expensive to make than the less sophisticated 1.6 never mind the 1.25.

Plug

captainspeed wrote: »

Of course, for the vast majority of Focus buyers this engine makes so much more sense than the diesel, and it's supposed to be a cracking engine to drive, so it must be really good, but try telling that to a nation famed for its herd mentality that this makes more sense than an engine with expensive DMF, DPF and EGR valves to go wrong and see how you get on!

This little engine will have them and more except the DPF. Let the repairs begin:D

Leonard Hofstadter

As far as I know, there is no DMF in the 1.0 Ecoboost - there is a special offset flywheel to deal with the vibrations from the engine! Because petrol engines are much smoother running than diesels, the DMF has a far easier life. BMW have been using DMFs in their petrol engines since the early 90s and you don't exactly hear of them failing, do you:)?

I really hope this engine will last in the long run, because it sounds amazing from what is being said in the press about it. My fear is that it won't have the durability of the older NA four cylinder engines Ford makes, which are practically bulletproof.

Guy:Incognito

I havnt read the details, but what are the advantages over just getting 125hp from a 1.4 instead? Surely the 1.0 is going to be more stressed and not as reliable?

I'd imagine with a bit of effort (and minus the cost of developing this whole new engine) the could have gotten the same Co2 figures from a 1.4.

captainspeed wrote: »

As far as I know, there is no DMF in the 1.0 Ecoboost - there is a special offset flywheel to deal with the vibrations from the engine! .

Hmm, "special" eh. Was the DMF not all new and shiney and special once too.

Henry Ford III

LIGHTNING wrote: »

They should stick it in the Fiesta or the KA then it would really shine.

Doesn't "fit" well in either apparently. Even though it's small and compact.