It’s a sign of the times that Ford is gearing up to launch the smallest capacity engine, with less cylinders than any it has previously produced. The new 1.0-liter EcoBoost will be launched globally in all small Ford cars, and in addition to recognized technologies employed by Ford in its EcoBoost engines, such as turbocharging, direct injection and twin independent variable camshaft timing (Ti-VCT), the new three-cylinder engine will have an offset crankshaft for improved fuel economy, a split cooling system that allows the cylinder block to warm up before the cylinder head, and the exhaust manifold is cast into the cylinder head to lower exhaust gas temperatures and save weight.
Yeah… 0 to 60 in 4.5 days.
Put it in a light car with a great suspension and this could be a lot of fun.
I still want a European spec FORD Focus RS however..
Ford is almost all caught up with the Eruos as far as engines are concerned. They now produce the best Nascar engines with the newest tech.
The late 90s Geo compacts had 1 .0 liter 3 cyl. engines.
http://kbb.com/geo/metro/1997-geo-metro-specifications/
hhopper…
“0 to 60 in 4.5 days”. But what you fail to consider is that this motor, coupled in an electric hybrid system, will give you a faster start than a turbocharged V8 Corvette. Let the electric motor, with tons or torque, do the starting. Let this motor take over for cruising or spinning a generator.
[I agree. I used to own a very fast hybrid. – ed.]
I like it and makes sense for utility urban driving at the least.
Small 1 cylinder vehicles are no longer taboo, thanks to the young, modern, practical minded urban progressives.
This may not be enough to haul a fatass Republican housewife to the mall but it’s a start.
#3, I had one of those, we use to call it the pod. To be fair it really didn’t make much since when gas was cheap, but these days I would love to have a small car that gets 50mpg. Not for work, but a little around town car.
Geo Metro Joke: “I got he car fully loaded, it came with everything…. except the fourth cylinder.”
In the late 80’s, GM had the Chevy Sprint (the second generation was actually designed by GM).
1.0L three cylinder with a turbocharger on it. It was a hyperactive little beast. My mom drove it.
The third generation was the Metro.
#5 Dull Ass,
How many “young,modern,practical minded urban progressive” hipsters even know how a car works or what a 1-liter engine means? If driving a car like this were “taboo” in the 80s no one would have been metros, yet they were popular until gas prices came down so much later in the 90s and it was obvious they were not reliable vehicles.
By the way, I don’t think I have ever seen a fat Rebuplican housewife. They are always in good shape jogging around the neighborhood in packs or going to Yoga. Fat ladies in SUVs usually live in slightly lower moderate income areas (they have a job – they are not housewives), whereas fat people in smaller vehicles will be found in high-minority urban areas. Once young urban progressives have children they blend in with the other folks in conservative neighborhoods and buy the biggest Land Rovers in the neighborhood. (They will put an Obama sticker on it to feel good about themselves until they get a little older and come to their senses.) Otherwise they stay kids themselves and live in little expensive hipster enclaves downtown surrounded by fat poor minorities driving cars with their catalytic converters cut off or Escapades (stolen or bought with drug money) polluting like crazy.
Come one, Dallas, get your simple-minded stereotypes right if you are going to make them!
In # 8 aslightlycrankygeek said: I don’t think I have ever seen a fat Rebuplican housewife.
Don’t go to Wal*Mart much then…
The Republican party scrapes the bottom half of the gene pool for docile voters who are first and foremost stupid, have no memory, love a good catchy phrase, like: “The G.O.P.” or “You’re doing a heck of a job Browny,” or “Saddam Hussein’s got Weapons of Mass Destruction“, don’t ask embarrassing questions, like “Yeah, uh, about those Weapons of Mass Destruction…” and march in lock-step to board the short bus.
Idiots who won’t gather round to Crawford Texas and form a lynch mob. (Unlike Europe where the ex-prez is not going.
first FOR FORD..
Umm, others have made these for along time…
I will bet 2 things..
The cars will be CRAP..
The millage will SUCK..
Only on ford.
A few reasons..
They wont use the larger Cylinders..They will TRY to stay with the SMALL cheap ones..NOT the old LARGE ones.
The cars will need to be LIGHT. VERY LiGHT..
A wind gust will SHOVE YOU around like a pin-ball..
#9,
I was (mostly) making fun of how much liberals like you and Dallas enjoy stereotyping people, and you just took it one step further. Kind of ironic coming from the “party of tolerance”, huh?
I could care less about your political believes and prejudices. (Nor does anyone else one here.) What I will comment on is when you think you are better than others because of them, and how absurd that is.
I will also comment on your lack of understanding of the world – such as thinking Republican housewives shop at Wal-Mart. This is rare unless you are living in a rural area. And if you are living in a rural area, EVERYONE in town will be there – liberal, conservative, libertarian, apathetic, fat, malnourished, etc. And if you are in an urban area, housewives prefer Target or more upscale shopping centers regardless of their political stripes. Working moms go to Wal-Mart.
What you are doing shopping at Wal-Mart anyway if you hate them so much?
Actually the current generation of young people is the first generation that prefers not to own a car. There was a study done about it last year and most young people don’t want a car payment, insurance, fuel and gas expenses. This is the same mentality as in Europe and it explains why bus companies are expanding exponentially and trains have the highest ridership ever.
I think it’s great that Ford is doing engines like this. The thing with the EcoBoost engines is that they have better fuel economy but have the power of a larger engine. The EcoBoost V6 is more powerful than some V8’s. I grew up a gearhead but I think it’s safe to say the V8’s of the future will be mostly for exotic and luxury cars or some business owner that needs the towing power. Sure there still will be guys with SUV’s and big pickups that need to show off and complain about how high the gas price is because of President but they are too macho to save money on a smaller engine. Hey it’s America, you are free to blow away your retirement on some jet ski’s and a big truck to move them around.
With a different block you could make a 2.0L V6. That would be pretty cool.
#12″Actually the current generation of young people is the first generation that prefers not to own a car.”
That’s because fewer of them have jobs.
#13 “That’s because fewer of them have jobs.”
That’s why a pigeon can do something a recent collage graduate can’t, make a deposit on a new car.
Also comes equipped with a trunk monkey, for when you need that extra push up hills.
May I all remind you of the Daihatsu Charade GTTI.
A 3 cylinder, 999cc 100hp small hatchback capable of doing 0-60 in 7.9 seconds.
http://torquestats.com/index.php?car_id=96
Bad body, great engineering.
Fiat has now developed a 2 cylinder 900cc engine that’s capable of producing 64 – 104 bhp.
http://autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/247787/
“The Little Engine That Could,” Ver. 3.0?
Nor less, fewer.
Good for Ford. My only quibble with them is that they have made and sold much better small cars in Europe than in the USA for generations.
My brother lived in Koln in the mid 1980s. It has a Ford plant and is “a Ford town”. Lots of very nice Escorts for sale and on the road. Not much like the crappy ones they sold here.
Oh, and Americans won’t buy a car named “Aspire”, “Charade”, or “Pencil Necked Geek” for that matter. No matter how good the car is or how much it costs. On the other hand, they bought thousands of really bad “Firebirds”, “Malibus”, “Mavericks”, “Monte Carlos”, etc.
Fewer.
The word is ‘fewer’.
Fewer cylinders, not less cylinders.
I thought the cylinders were smaller? There are fewer less cylinders—no?
#19
The reason is that there was an unspoken agreement between the domestic makers not to cannibalize the stupid-size vehicle market. After the engine and frame, which need some extra metal, it is mostly plastic and glass.
They ganged up to force a higher markup, at the cost of crashing the business.
Ford also didn’t bring the much more capable rally inspired Focus to the US for several model generations.
Honda’s racing made Honda engines amazing, Subaru made itself with rallying, and Nissan made a comeback with the Z. The idea that EVERYBODY wants a huge shitbox is foolish.
GM also whiffed on a car called the Opel Speedster which they got during a consolidation phase. Cheap, fast, and cute. No interest in bringing it to the states.
I think even Honda has started to pull back from its roots. If you put a current generation civic motor into the CR-Z it would be a lighter, faster, and about the same MPG.
It SHOULD also be cheap, like really cheap. If they can sell profitably for 19k and you subtract 2k+ of batteries(and hundreds of pounds)… why the hell aren’t they doing it?
Because the product is too good! And if Honda is thinking like that… we need to get the Chinese into the US domestic auto market.
Gas flow is everything in a small block engine. This looks promising.
energy – per person – per mile.
Years ago I saw an article on a person mover that looked like an exoskelton that a person strapped on and at low speeds the person moved around basically standing up but as speed increased, the “device” moved lower to the ground. It was super cool–haven’t seen anything like it since. Think of Battle Mechs designed for transportation.
Thinking of that, weight, mileage….seems to me a real breakthru in this type of stuff will occur when “power” is transmitted from the roadway and not generated in the vehicle. This would also allow for billing and for traffic control, pesonal monitoring, all kinds of sci-fi and I think its all doable now with a change in culture. That change to be mandated by too many people and not enough resources.
Yes, the future is so bright, I gotta wear shades.
Used to have a single cylinder BMW which could out accelerate and outrun any SUV.
It also had two fewer wheels…
#24
It is an interesting idea, but there is a cost to having electricity available over a distance with big conductive surface.
Think of bumper cars places, where the cars run connected by a metal hook to the an electrified metal mesh above the track. Lots of sparks = wasted energy.
There would need to be some sort oddball transmission of energy, unless you’re talking full-size slot cars. That WOULD be cool. Nearly instant 0 to 100% acceleration.
I saw a thing recently that suggested generating electricity from roads using both solar cells and pressure from passing vehicles. Neat idea.
Closing the loop, where the generated energy flows directly back to the vehicle is nigh impossible.
Could imagine an intermediate thing for trains. They have tons of territory with direct sun on both sides of the tracks. Why not solar trains? Then you wouldn’t have to solve the problem of the things getting repeatedly squished.
What infuriates me, nothing with you :-), is that people seem to assume that we’ve reached the pinnacle of technological advance. Like things just accelerated dramatically a few hundred years ago and are now crashing to a halt forever.
#1 I drove the Euro Focus and the American Focus on test tracks and the difference was minor. There is so much computerized real-time tweaking I’m not sure too many people could tell the difference. And the American suspension might be better on American pothole riddled roads. especially in California.
#26–Chris==Yea, years ago my idea was slot cars with enough battery to go from track to track. “Systems” could be very inefficient but still have massive advantages over the inefficiencies of multiple individual power units especially given the cost/technology of batteries as it stands now.
but a month or so ago saw articles on break thrus for wireless transmitted power. Receivers getting better at it and I suppose the power ray can be focused better with computers. Don’t computers make everything better? I still like hard wiring for so much–they just make sense. But… lots of efficiency in not having heavy battery/fuel storage, motors in series coming on only as power needed and so forth.
Photovoltaics break thru will allow roadways to generate a lot of power, same with roof tops and parking.
Everything is doable and made cost effective as soon as we run out of oil and the true cost supports for that energy source are no longer hiding the all the many relevant issues.
Yea, verily.
and here is the latest potential for battery technology although it mentions the use of lithium which I think is in short supply. It also seems to be more of a capacitor than battery which also needs a break thru given its technology doesn’t use rare earth.
c’mon science–we’re rooting for you!
http://extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2386464,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ziffdavis%2Fextremetech+%28Extremetech%29
if anything, it’s bigger than a smart car’s Braubus diesel engine. That’s 0.8L