1.0 litre focus any body ?

Bigus

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/261143/




Ford has announced prices for new ultra-efficient three-cylinder petrol engined Focus EcoBoost, which will be available from next month. The entry-level Focus Edge will be priced at £16,245, a £250 premium over the 104bhp 1.6 model, while the 118hp 5dr will be £500 more.
The turbocharged 1.0-litre engine will be offered in two power levels, and both will qualify for zero vehicle excise duty in the first year. The most potent will offer 123hp, delivering a claimed 56.5mpg on the combined cycle while producing only 114g/km of Co2.
Equipped with the 99bhp Ecoboost engine, the Ford Focus returns an average of 58.9mpg and Co2 emissions of 109g/km, best in class for a petrol engine.

Bigus

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/News/Search-Results/Industry-News/Tomorrows-world-Fords-downsized-10-litre-Ecoboost/

Alanstrainor

I'm all for it. Wonder how they'll far on the reliability front, but it's lot better than the 75bhp 1.4 that's in them now.

ottostreet

At least it's not a diesel.

johnos1984

I wonder will it end up using fuel as much as the ultra efficient Fiat Multiair engine

Mully_2011

I'm interested in the torque number havings 120bhp isn't going to make a blind bit of difference if it hasn't got the Torque

Matthewjohn

Ford are also thinking of putting the 1.0 in the new mondeo as well instead of the standard 1.6

alexmcred

And the four cylinder drops to three. How long till all manufacturers follow this route I wonder.

alexlyons

I hope its nothing like my old 3 cylinder 1.2 polo (03)...

dr.fuzzenstein

Car manufacturers are being assessed on Co2 emissions across their entire range, so this looks like an exercise in keeping the green mafia happy, maybe most European Fords do not have massive engines, but in the US it's a different matter, plenty of gas guzzling, Co2 chugging V8's out there.
So that other countries can keep their V8's, we have to drive cars with engines from foodblenders.
How do you even properly balance a three cylinder? Four stroke needs four cylinders, otherwise it's as balanced as a three legged dog.
So these things have the HP, but I don't see much torque from them, so will probably have to be revved to the sky to get anything out of them.
Forget overtaking in 4th (or even 3rd:p).
Others will follow suit, let's wait for the new 5 series with a 1.2, well it is a luxury car and therefore has to have more grunt than the opposition...
I would totally understand a 1 litre engine, but you can't shove it into a Focus (or Heaven Help a Mondeo!) and expect it to work brilliantly.

lomb

If people dont like it (and I dont) then why not pick up a 10 year old V8 Jag for buttons and spend the difference on tax and fuel;)

Henry Ford III

Alanstrainor wrote: »

I'm all for it. Wonder how they'll far on the reliability front, but it's lot better than the 75bhp 1.4 that's in them now.

95bhp 1.6 (petrol or diesel) are the entry level engines these days.

I've no idea how these new 3 cylinder engines will sound/drive,so will just have to wait and see. Turbo charging should give them reasonable torque.

Pique

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

How do you even properly balance a three cylinder? Four stroke needs four cylinders, otherwise it's as balanced as a three legged dog.

Triumph manage quite well with 3 cylinders in their bikes and balancing one of them is quite important, apparently

dr.fuzzenstein

lomb wrote: »

If people dont like it (and I dont) then why not pick up a 10 year old V8 Jag for buttons and spend the difference on tax and fuel;)

Like the idea, it works as long as you're not going anywhere.:p

SouperComputer

Mully_2011 wrote: »

I'm interested in the torque number havings 120bhp isn't going to make a blind bit of difference if it hasn't got the Torque

"the 118bhp version develops 125lb ft torque over a wide range, between 1300rpm and 4500rpm."

Zubeneschamali

alexmcred wrote: »

And the four cylinder drops to three. How long till all manufacturers follow this route I wonder.

Bentley have installed a mere V8 in their latest model, in place of the W12 motor.

Leonard Hofstadter

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Bentley have installed a mere V8 in their latest model, in place of the W12 motor.

It's still available with the W12 engine!

Anyway, to return to the point of this thread, I'm sure that this engine will be great.... for about 50,000 miles and then it will be like a modern diesel and will develop all kinds of expensive problems like carbon build up (since it's direct injection), turbo failure and of course that fancy flywheel is a recepie for disaster, all these fancy engines are great for getting through the EU emissions tests but SFA good at everything else:(!

Give me a larger displacement naturally aspirated engine any day of the week, it may be less high tech and cost more to tax but in the real world it will use less fuel, and it will not only be more reliable but even when it does go wrong it will cost far less to repair.

I really think modern cars are built to last 100,000 miles max, God be with the days of simple non direct injection naturally aspirated petrol engines of a larger swept volume and more cylinders, which could do 250,000 miles no problem as long as you serviced it, and were smoother and sounded better because of the extra cylinders to boot!

Henry Ford III

captainspeed wrote: »

It's still available with the W12 engine!

Anyway, to return to the point of this thread, I'm sure that this engine will be great.... for about 50,000 miles and then it will be like a modern diesel and will develop all kinds of expensive problems like carbon build up (since it's direct injection), turbo failure and of course that fancy flywheel is a recepie for disaster, all these fancy engines are great for getting through the EU emissions tests but SFA good at everything else:(!

Give me a larger displacement naturally aspirated engine any day of the week, it may be less high tech and cost more to tax but in the real world it will use less fuel, and it will not only be more reliable but even when it does go wrong it will cost far less to repair.

I really think modern cars are built to last 100,000 miles max, God be with the days of simple non direct injection naturally aspirated petrol engines of a larger swept volume and more cylinders, which could do 250,000 miles no problem as long as you serviced it, and were smoother and sounded better because of the extra cylinders to boot!

I don't think that's fair tbh.

None of us know how good or otherwise these 3 pot engines will be, but I'm sure they'll have been pretty extensively tested before we even get near them.

A completely new engine range is a big undertaking, and would be a disaster if the end product was substandard.

Bigus

Latest;

Autocar impressed driving the three cylinder



http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/Ford-Focus-1.0-125-Ecoboost-Zetec/261245/

Should I buy one?
This engine is a game-changer. It shows just how much life remains in petrol engines of a suck-squeeze-bang-blow persuasion. And that nowadays there is indeed a substitute for cubic inches.
Daft as it may sound, the tiny but super-advanced turbo triple – engineered in Dunton, England – confers a remarkable new layer of smoothness and refinement on the Ford's big-selling C-segment hatchback that is so obvious, so impressive and so refreshing that it leaves the four-cylinder models gasping.

Owen

I don't agree that modern engines aren't built to last, I think any engine on the road these days is going to do 200000 miles without a bother. Was speaking to a guy in the AA a few weeks back, and he said they're actually feeling there's less breakdown work now due to modern cars not being as flaky as cars from the 80's/90's.

I have a 3 cylinder in the Smart and it's grand. One good characteristic about a 3 cylinder is that there's a lovely engine note. BMW's three cylinder engines should be coming on stream soon too.

Henry Ford III

Interesting development.

If this new engine can deliver decent overall performance (principally fuel economy) and come in at a lower retail price than the corresponding diesels (it'll be emissions band A) then it may change the market somewhat.

Imagine - light on fuel, low motor tax and vrt, cheaper to buy than modern diesels - they'd sell by the bucketload.

R.O.R

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Interesting development.

If this new engine can deliver decent overall performance (principally fuel economy) and come in at a lower retail price than the corresponding diesels (it'll be emissions band A) then it may change the market somewhat.

Imagine - light on fuel, low motor tax and vrt, cheaper to buy than modern diesels - they'd sell by the bucketload.

Still don't think the resale value is going to be there though. BMW petrols aren't far off their diesel counterparts for emissions (and therefore tax and fuel consumption) but there are feck all sold, and the resale difference we experienced between 08 318i's and 318d's was pretty vast last year.

Dartz

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Like the idea, it works as long as you're not going anywhere.:p

Or a 20 year old V12 Jag and spend the difference on fuel alone. And repairs... the endless repairs.

Henry Ford III

R.O.R wrote: »

Still don't think the resale value is going to be there though. BMW petrols aren't far off their diesel counterparts for emissions (and therefore tax and fuel consumption) but there are feck all sold, and the resale difference we experienced between 08 318i's and 318d's was pretty vast last year.

I can see where you are coming from but 3 series and Focus are pretty different.

C02 wise the current 316d and 320i are near identical, but the 316d is €34750 vs €38350 for the 320i (figures from Carzone).

A Focus 1.6vct 5 door (petrol) is €21285, and the entry level TDCI is €500 more. Road tax is Band A for the diesel however and Band B.

So if the new 3 pot petrol comes in at band A, the VRT will reduce, meaning the difference in price between it and the entry TDCI will actually widen.

I think.

R.O.R

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I can see where you are coming from but 3 series and Focus are pretty different.

C02 wise the current 316d and 320i are near identical, but the 316d is €34750 vs €38350 for the 320i (figures from Carzone).

A Focus 1.6vct 5 door (petrol) is €21285, and the entry level TDCI is €500 more. Road tax is Band A for the diesel however and Band B.

So if the new 3 pot petrol comes in at band A, the VRT will reduce, meaning the difference in price between it and the entry TDCI will actually widen.

I think.

It might not effect the Focus as much as a 3 Series, but as an example:

Earliest 3 Series pricing I can find is Sep 2008. 318i ES was €38,385 and a 318d ES was €39,385.

Middle of last year we had a 318i SE with around 112,000km and a 318d SE with around 160,000km for sale at the same time. Both in pretty reasonable condition, and I think the actual spec was a bit better on the Petrol.

We got €6,000 more for the diesel :eek:

Feedback from all my suppliers is that no-one is looking for Petrol in new cars, regardless of whether it's a better suit to the driving being done. Unless there is a substantial change back to Petrol in the general public's mindset, it's still going to be diesel after diesel after diesel.

Henry Ford III

R.O.R wrote: »

...Feedback from all my suppliers is that no-one is looking for Petrol in new cars, regardless of whether it's a better suit to the driving being done. Unless there is a substantial change back to Petrol in the general public's mindset, it's still going to be diesel after diesel after diesel.

That's exactly what I was trying to get at R.O.R.

Ask yourself this - why are diesels dominant in the market currently?

I'd suggest:

1/. Low tax (Irish people are mad for Band A vehicles).
2/. Low VRT
3/. Good economy.
4/. Better residuals.

Now perhaps this new engine range can deliver on 1/. to 3/. above, and will be less expensive to buy day 1.

That sort of thing can make people rethink a bit. Perhaps.

Pique

R.O.R wrote: »

Feedback from all my suppliers is that no-one is looking for Petrol in new cars, regardless of whether it's a better suit to the driving being done. Unless there is a substantial change back to Petrol in the general public's mindset, it's still going to be diesel after diesel after diesel.

Hopefully meaning cheaper second-hand petrols for the rest of us

R.O.R

Henry Ford III wrote: »

That's exactly what I was trying to get at R.O.R.

Ask yourself this - why are diesels dominant in the market currently?

I'd suggest:

1/. Low tax (Irish people are mad for Band A vehicles).
2/. Low VRT
3/. Good economy.
4/. Better residuals.

Now perhaps this new engine range can deliver on 1/. to 3/. above, and will be less expensive to buy day 1.

That sort of thing can make people rethink a bit. Perhaps.

Henry, you are giving far too much credit to the thought processes of the great unwashed. The feedback I generally hear is that Seamus down the pub said that diesel is de way to go, and he's mad in to his motors, so that's what I'm going to buy for my 5 minute trip to the shops once a week.

Leonard Hofstadter

I must admit that the review Autocar gave it suggests that this new engine really is a great bit of stuff.

What Car said "extraordinary is not too strong a word", so it must be really really good.

I'd choose it over the diesel every day of the week. And I agree with Owen, three cylinder engines sound much nicer than fours, the really good sounding ones do a very good impression of a six cylinder engine! They are definitely far more characterful than fours.

I am still worried that it will lack the necessary reliability (or the necessary tolerance of neglect that will be needed to survive the average Irish motorist), I'm sure if you service it on time with the correct grade oil it will be fine, but how many Irish people will do that? I am also worried that it will turn out to be like the Fiat 500 Twinair - great in theory for mpg, but in reality a larger displacement engine is more economical in the real world, although the Autocar review suggests that maybe that is not the case.

The older 1.6 petrol will still do a claimed 48 mpg, which is still very impressive, and will be much more tolerant of abuse (and then more suitable for the average Joe who only services their car when the NCT is coming up) - it won't go wrong because there is nothing in it to go wrong!

Henry Ford III

The older 1.6's would average mid/high 30's mpg in the real world. Much better on a long run, but worse in urban situations.

SK1979

If sales were good of this new 1.0 petrol version, does anyone reckon there's a chance that Ford Ireland might try and introduce the 1.6 ecoboosts to the market?

ShadowHearth

ottostreet wrote: »

At least it's not a diesel.

Feckin amen to that!

So how much is it in rip off Ireland?

Leonard Hofstadter

Apparently this little 1.0 Ecoboost engine is capable of producing 177 bhp:eek::eek:!

I'm sure that such an engine will be like the new tri turbo BMW diesel - extraordinary to drive when new, but again you have to ask the question - how long will it last before it goes expensively wrong? 177 bhp is a massive amount for a 1.0 litre engine. Unless the pistons, con-rods etc are all heavily beefed up there is no way a little engine like this will take all that abuse.

What was wrong with designing cars that could do 250,000 miles if you bothered to look after them?

creedp

captainspeed wrote: »

Apparently this little 1.0 Ecoboost engine is capable of producing 177 bhp:eek::eek:!

I'm sure that such an engine will be like the new tri turbo BMW diesel - extraordinary to drive when new, but again you have to ask the question - how long will it last before it goes expensively wrong? 177 bhp is a massive amount for a 1.0 litre engine. Unless the pistons, con-rods etc are all heavily beefed up there is no way a little engine like this will take all that abuse.

What was wrong with designing cars that could do 250,000 miles if you bothered to look after them?

Isn't that the US philosophy .. there's no substitute for cubic capacity .. for longevity.

AugustusMinimus

creedp wrote: »

Isn't that the US philosophy .. there's no substitute for cubic capacity .. for longevity.

The usual saying is "There's no replacement for displacement".

I would imagine that this engine will really get good mileage on motorways. Most N/A engines when are providing too much torque for driving between 60 to 70mph on a flat surface, but they have no other option than to provide this torque as the engine has to turn at a certain speed to drive at 70mph.


On the other hand, a 1l engine may be putting out an optimal amount of torque at 70mph without using the turbo but will have the turbo there when you need more torque for accelerating up through the gears or when overtaking.

Will be very few N/A engines left in a few years.

AugustusMinimus

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Imagine a 177bhp in a KA now that would be a fun little car. The only thing that is a little disappointing is that its redline is at 6700rpm. I wonder if they have kept that low for the life of the engine.

I always thought that the turbo version of an engine will have it's red line set lower due to more excessive forces going through the pison, cons and crank shaft.

Henry Ford III

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

The usual saying is "There's no replacement for displacement".

I would imagine that this engine will really get good mileage on motorways. Most N/A engines when are providing too much torque for driving between 60 to 70mph on a flat surface, but they have no other option than to provide this torque as the engine has to turn at a certain speed to drive at 70mph.


On the other hand, a 1l engine may be putting out an optimal amount of torque at 70mph without using the turbo but will have the turbo there when you need more torque for accelerating up through the gears or when overtaking.

Will be very few N/A engines left in a few years.

Peak torque is available from 1400-4500rpm, with overboost available too.

I'd have imagined it to be a "revvy" highly stressed engine due to the sheer lack of displacement, but the opposite seems to be the case - 90mph is 3000rpm in 6th gear. That'd make 100kph 2066rpm.

Tea 1000

When you think of it though, 2 litre diesels aren't long away from the time they used produce less than 70hp. Now BMW have one that's knocking out 208bhp. So 177 from a 3 cylinder petrol isn't completely daft!
Imagine fitting that engine to a kart though!! Or putting two of them in a Fiesta...

AugustusMinimus

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Peak torque is available from 1400-4500rpm, with overboost available too.

I'd have imagined it to be a "revvy" highly stressed engine due to the sheer lack of displacement, but the opposite seems to be the case - 90mph is 3000rpm in 6th gear. That'd make 100kph 2066rpm.

Talking very high boost levels so I guess.

Smaller an engine is, the easier it is to have higher boost levels. Keeping revs down is the key to good mileage. 90mph with only 3,000 revs is excellent.

Henry Ford III

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Talking very high boost levels so I guess.

Smaller an engine is, the easier it is to have higher boost levels. Keeping revs down is the key to good mileage. 90mph with only 3,000 revs is excellent.

The turbo is "tiny" though, so would that tally?

Henry Ford III

Henry Ford III wrote: »

The turbo is "tiny" though, so would that tally?

Yep, diesel turbo units operate at higher levels than petrol ones and are typically smaller

Just shy of 20psi isn't uncommon for diesel blowers, 10 to 12psi wouldn't be uncommon for 200bhp petrol units.

Henry Ford III

The bumf claims "variable valve timing, miniature turbo, advanced electronics, direct fuel injection system".

I had the TiVCT in a 09 Fiesta Zetec S and it was good. The engine pulled harder than it really felt it should have. Decent torque throughout the range.

Advanced electronics. Not sure what that means.

Direct injection - good for economy, but historically weren't great I think - Mitsubishi Gdi? Maybe they've perfected it now?

AugustusMinimus

I'm hoping this is the death knell for the 1.4L, in the Focus anyways. It's the slowest piece of crap I've ever driven.

Henry Ford III

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I'm hoping this is the death knell for the 1.4L, in the Focus anyways. It's the slowest piece of crap I've ever driven.

It's the death knell for the current 1.6! The 1.4 was pensioned off with the last model.

r3nu4l

R.O.R wrote: »

Henry, you are giving far too much credit to the thought processes of the great unwashed. The feedback I generally hear is that Seamus down the pub said that diesel is de way to go, and he's mad in to his motors, so that's what I'm going to buy for my 5 minute trip to the shops once a week.

Yeah but for people who buy diesels for the right reasons* (people like me ), this is a very interesting development. I won't be buying another car for a while now (just bought a second one a few weeks ago) so when I do come around to getting a car, these should have been around for a couple of years and it's likely that the reliability issues will be known to some extent Happy days.




*loooooonng commutes on Motorways and A-roads, minimum 20,000 miles a year.

AugustusMinimus

Anyone know which version of the engine will be going into the Focus ?

I'm guessing that the 98bhp version might only be available in the Ka and Fiesta with the 118bhp version being saved for the Focus and Mondeo ?

Henry Ford III

Both versions.

flyingsnail

From a ford press release:
http://www.talkford.com/page/index.html/_/ford%E2%80%99s-new-10-litre-ecoboost-petrol-engine-pow-r1135

The second EcoBoost engine introduced into the all-new Focus, the 1.0-litre version combines turbocharging, direct injection and twin variable cam timing to deliver high levels of performance and refinement with all the fuel economy advantages of downsizing.

The 1.0-litre, three-cylinder EcoBoost delivers responsiveness and a wide range of peak torque to appeal to traditional petrol and diesel customers alike. It produces 125PS and 170Nm peak torque (200Nm with overboost) between 1,400 and 4,500rpm.

These output figures are achieved in combination with fuel economy improvements of 20 per cent over the outgoing 1.6-litre 125PS unit. In the five-door Focus with 125PS, combined fuel economy is 56.5mpg with low petrol CO2 emissions of 114g/km. The 100PS version delivers a combined fuel economy of 58.9mpg and outright best-in-class petrol CO2 emissions of 109g/km.

That would seem to suggest that both the 100PS and 125PS would be available in the focus. I have not heard anything about what they are putting in the mondeo.

Mister Jingles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t908YJRebw

Another interesting one here too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaUDNhS1nrg

Nissan doctor

Its seems that the major manufacturers (both vehicle manufacturers and engine control system manufacturers) see small capacity high power turbo petrol engines as the medium term future not diesel.

I was at a training thing with Delphi the other week and they were saying that development of modern diesels has reached its peak and isn't being further developed by most major manufacturers as it was really just a quick fix due to diesels low CO2 emissions.

Ford are heading up this with their eco boost engines(hence they never bothered developing a smaller diesel for the likes of the focus) and it seems that other manufacturers have similar systems in development. They said the next generation of GM/Opel/Vauxhall cars will be going the modern small petrol route.

Makes sense to me as diesel may have lower CO2 then petrol, but petrol, as a whole, is much cleaner.

The Delphi guys reckoned that Hydrogen engines are the long term future, 'no question' was his response in fact, but said it could be 20 years before it can operate with the convenience of current engines.

They are also involved in developing another medium/long term solution whereby the small petrol engine generates the power for the electric motors, rather then powers the wheels.

carbon nanotube

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