50 mpg? Ford bringing three-cylinder engines to U.S.

[TrainTrac]

This would be a big feather in FoMoCo's cap if it comes to fruition and they have braggin' rights about the first and/or only 50mpg gas-powered product for sale in the US.

50 mpg? Ford bringing three-cylinder engines to U.S.



By Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY

Ford Fiesta is a likely candidate for Ford's turbocharged three-cylinder engine.



A three-cylinder engine? It's been more than a decade since we've seen one, but now Ford is bringing a three-banger to America.



It's going to be a 1-liter turbocharged three-cylinder engine that will launch worldwide, including the U.S., and conceivably go into Ford's smallest cars, like that Fiesta shown above.



The tiny 1-liter engine is being designed at a Ford technical center in the United Kingdom. The goal is to create an engine that gets the same or better miles-per-gallon as a 1.6-liter four cylinder engine. Ford isn't saying how many miles a gallon such a miserly powerplant could develop, but it already has some 40-mile-per-gallon models for the highway, and 50 mpg on the highway doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.



The last time we remember three-cylinder engines being sold in the U.S. was on some Suzuki Swifts and a sister version from General Motors, the Chevrolet Metro, in the '90s. They got such astounding mileage ratings that even beaters were selling for top dollar when gas prices hit all-time highs in 2008.



"Consumers are telling us they want to buy affordable vehicles that get many more miles per gallon," said Derrick Kuzak, global product development chief. "Our new 1-liter EcoBoost engine will give consumers looking for hybrid-like fuel economy a new, more affordable choice."



He describes the new engine as "a little dynamo." Features of the new engine include:



* An offset crankshaft that helps improve fuel economy.

* An advanced, Ford-designed split cooling system that allows the cylinder block to warm up before the cylinder head. Faster cylinder block warm-ups save fuel, especially in cold weather.

* An exhaust manifold cast into the cylinder head. The one-piece assembly lowers the temperature of the exhaust gases. This enables the engine to run in a wider rpm band with the optimum fuel-to-air ratio. The new design also saves weight and allows the engine to operate more smoothly.

* EcoBoost technologies, such as turbocharging, direct injection and twin independent variable camshaft timing.



First seen in the Ford Start concept car that debuted at Beijing in 2010, the engine more recently made its European debut in the Ford B-MAX at the 2011 Geneva Motor Show. More details will be released in September at the Frankfurt Motor Show in Germany.

 

[Jerry Gerner 2]

IIRC, didn't the old Metro's have three cylinder motors.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Provided it truly does have sufficient power to do things, I could see getting one for a commuter car.



Especially if it had some versatility to it. If it were RWD or AWD I'd already be sold; FWD is crap, an engineering fallacy and IME no fun at all. But I digress :grin:



Though who comes up with these concept designs? All the ones I remember being posted on here in recent history are the definition of fugly.

 

[Scott Tanner]

At least someone is listening...



"Consumers are telling us they want to buy affordable vehicles that get many more miles per gallon," said Derrick Kuzak, global product development chief. "Our new 1-liter EcoBoost engine will give consumers looking for hybrid-like fuel economy a new, more affordable choice."



Now we need them to hear this:

" Consumers who want a 5 passenger capable truck with a bed don't always want a F-150, regardless of the fact that our new F-150 gets good mileage"



:soap:

 

[Richard L]

Jerry,

Yes, the early Geo/Chevy Meto's had 3 cylinder engines buT that was way back in the late 1980's and early 1990's. The article says that US cars have not used 3 cylinder engines in more than a decade, which is true.



I have been looking at various ideas about saving gas for many years now and have found this concept to be the best way to get high gas mileage.



It has been shown that to power a standard US sedan (4-5 passenger sedan) traveling at 55 mph, only requires about 10-12 HP. It has also been shown that conventional piston engines give their best efficiency when operated at between 60% to 90% of their total rated power output. Of course the larger the displacement of the engine, the more fuel it will consume.



The problem has always been that 12 HP may get you cruising at 55, acceleration to get to that speed would be very slow, and you would not have any passing power.



What may engineers have been suggesting is using very small engines for better fuel ecomomy, and adding turbocharges (free HP) to allow the engines to develop more HP for passing and acceleration.



Remeber that the original old VW Beetle only had 36 HP (1200-1300cc's) and would run up to about 70 MPH on the highway and gave excellent fuel mileage for it's simple technology. With today's lighter chassis' and modern computer controlled engine technology, like Fords Eco-Boost, Direct Injection, variable cam timing, etc. is the way to go. Even today, an engine putting out 36 HP like the old VW's the addition of proper gearing, turbo's and Eco-Boost technology in a small light-weight car body should get great mileage, as well as provide adequate power for passing and acceleration. Perhaps not everyone's standards, but still adequate to get up to highway speed in under 20 seconds....Remember, we are talking about saving gas while driving, not racing.



I am glad to see that a US manufacturer (Ford) has jumped on this concept with a working, marketable product.



...Rich

 

[Ray McIntireJr]

sounds like fords version of the geo metro. lol

 

[Richard L]

raym2,

Laugh if you want, but I suspect that most of us will be driving that size vehicle in the not to distant future. Right now used, nearly junked Geo Metros are running from $1000-$5000 depending on condition and if they run.....It appears that Ford's version is way better than any Geo Metro, as far as gas mileage, good looks, and probably overall performance.



...Rich

 

[Gavin Allan]

Nothing better than a Sport Trac with a V-twin Briggs and Stratton engine! :bwahaha:

 

[Kevin Lang]

It has also been shown that conventional piston engines give their best efficiency when operated at between 60% to 90% of their total rated power output. The problem has always been that 12 HP may get you cruising at 55, acceleration to get to that speed would be very slow, and you would not have any passing power.

Honestly, I think that's still going to be the problem with this car. Unless the engine has some way to constantly scale its total rated power output, it'll still have the same problem of too much power when you don't need it, or too little power when you do. As far as I know, dynamic power scaling technologies still suck. I know that I personally loathe drive by wire, and even the Gen 2 ST has issues with it. Motor Trend has shown that cylinder disabling technology, for example, can actually be less efficient than the same car with a "normal" engine.



I also don't trust a car to know when I need, or don't need, power. Maybe that's the heart of my issues with this.



I hope Ford has this figured out. If it works, and is actually affordable, I could stand to get one for commuting. I'd suffer it for the MPGs, though a manual transmission's fun would ease the suffering. (Though a manual in traffic could make it worse, come to think.)



Do you think that this car concept would even offer normal transmissions, or would it go for a more "exotic" fuel saving transmission like the CVT?

 

[Jacob Dryer]

The MDS on my Hemi powered Jeep works quite well (below 65 mph) I installed an led to show when it is active and it has really helped me adjust my driving to get the best mileage out of my big displacement engine. Granted mileage still sucks, but I think the technology is working and it makes a noticeable difference over the coarse of a trip if I make sure I'm driving in the MDS active range.

 

[Larry Gamble]

I remember the original Fiesta RS from the 1980's with it's 1.8L Turbo four banger.



With the manual tranny, it was a blast to drive and it's 100hp made it stiff competition for the VW GTI which was heavier.

 

[Richard L]

KL,

Fly-by-wire only causes a delay in acceleration, not a reduction in HP. The manufacturers are getting better at making the fly-by-wire more responsive by eliminating the delay. Also with a 3 cylinder engine, you probably don't want to shut down any cylinders.



Turbocharging is free energy from the exhaust heat and has always been an excellent way to boost HP. With a properly sized turbo on a small engine you can get very good gas mileage and brisk acceleration. I'm sure it will not be a race car, but we are talking about a car designed to get 50+MPG...not zero to 60MPH in 3 seconds.



I suspect that the first transmissions would be a 6 speed manual and perhaps a 4-5 speed automatic... Later they may switch to a CVT as they have been proven to work well with small fuel saving engines in small, light weight cars.





...Rich

 

[Kevin Lang]

Without some system to give this Ford power when it accelerates, and then take it away when it only needs 15 HP or so to cruise, how can it operate at the recommended 90% of peak capacity?



I suppose its possible that there will be some sort of automated system for managing the turbocharger that will do this, but doesn't that give us a whole host of new problems?



Building on what you said, maximum efficiency requires having at most 50 hp or so to accelerate, but then only 15 or so hp to cruise. I don't really have faith in whatever automated HP-reducing system Ford might create to accomplish this.



The 3 cylinder car is something that is at home in Asia, especially Japan. That America has to stoop to that level is sad. Will Ford at least make the passenger side mirror standard? (As opposed to that Indian car of a while back)

 

[Tom Schindler]

The 3 cylinder car is something that is at home in Asia, especially Japan. That America has to stoop to that level is sad.

Welcome to outsourcing. This is the sign of things to come. To compete, you must revert to their level.





Tom

 

[Richard L]

KL,

The 3 cylinder car is something that is at home in Asia, especially Japan.

That is not completely true since 3 cylinder engines and smaller have been used in Europe as well for many years. Europe is still filled with bicycles and mopeds as well as many new model micro cars that have never been seen in the USA It all has to do with the high price of gasoline these countries and most areas of the world have always had, Now the US is getting it's taste.



Don't look at these small engines as having 50 HP being throttled back to 15 HP. It's more like a 15-20 HP engine being boosted to 40-50 HP for short periods of acceleration. Turbo's do that naturally. They require no HP and do not require any extra fuel at low speed and cruising. They only boost HP when needed for acceleration. Add to that variable cam timing, direct injection, and other fuel saving techniques and I'm sure a small 3 cylinder engine in a small, aerodynamic, light weight car with proper gearing will give great mileage and sitll have zippy performance when needed. Europeans have had them for many decades now and some of the new engine technologies will make them practical for use in the USA, even if they don't completely replace the larger cars and trucks.



Gas prices are on the decline for now, but they will go back up again. When gas prices start heading north of $4.00 a gallon more and more people will want smaller fuel saving vehicles.



Average vehicle occupancy today is about 1.5 people per vehicle. With the exception af a few car-pool in larger city areas, most people drive to work alone. Why wouldn't one of these small 3 cylinder vehicles be an ideal vehicle for that daily commute, as well as work for the smaller young families?



I think it's more about the American mindset that assumes you need to have a large vehicle and 300+HP under the hood, and anything smaller is Un-American. For many decades Americans have been obsessed with large engines for acceleration that gulped cheap gasoline, while Europeans were making small cars with small engines that had great handling, sufficient highway and autobahn cruising speeds, but only sipped expensive gasoline.



European cars had disk brakes, radial tires, great handling, small fuel efficient car technology decades before the US. but it eventually made it to the US. I think Ford is on the right track with this small 3 cylinder car by adding US engine technology to make a small affordable car that get 50+MPG.



...Rich

 

[gary s]

"Welcome to outsourcing. This is the sign of things to come."



why is there outsourcing?



maybe for "survival" reasons

 

[Kevin Lang]

It all has to do with the high price of gasoline these countries and most areas of the world have always had, Now the US is getting it's taste.

But Europe penalizes gasoline use via prohibitive taxes--they drove 3 cylinder machines because they "wanted" to (or the people they have in power wanted them to, more aptly). They, unlike us, didn't have to.

Gas prices are on the decline for now, but they will go back up again. When gas prices start heading north of $4.00 a gallon more and more people will want smaller fuel saving vehicles.

Did you mean to use a 4 there, cause gas already was over that in my area, and is now only a quarter shy of of the evil 4 dollar threshold.

Don't look at these small engines as having 50 HP being throttled back to 15 HP. It's more like a 15-20 HP engine being boosted to 40-50 HP for short periods of acceleration. Turbo's do that naturally. They require no HP and do not require any extra fuel at low speed and cruising. They only boost HP when needed for acceleration. Add to that variable cam timing, direct injection, and other fuel saving techniques and I'm sure a small 3 cylinder engine in a small, aerodynamic, light weight car with proper gearing will give great mileage and sitll have zippy performance when needed.

I'm still concerned about the "when needed" clause on the performance. When I need to accelerate, I need to accelerate. I hated the Drive-by-Wire delay. However the Drive-by-Wire delay could be eliminated by the manufacturer. Turbo lag/spool cannot be. Mashing the gas pedal and having to wait a second or so for the power to kick in doesn't sound like fun to me...at least not in a FWD commuter car.

I think it's more about the American mindset that assumes you need to have a large vehicle and 300+HP under the hood, and anything smaller is Un-American. For many decades Americans have been obsessed with large engines for acceleration that gulped cheap gasoline, while Europeans were making small cars with small engines that had great handling, sufficient highway and autobahn cruising speeds, but only sipped expensive gasoline.

I for one don't need 300 hp--I drive an ST--I just need a guarantee that I can accelerate in a realistic timeframe, while carrying probable weight, in this new Ford. I've been known to carpool--could this proposed Ford truly handle 4 adults on the harrowing DC commute? On your note, I hope that this unter-car is fun to drive and has great handling.



BTW, I gotta :rofl: at the irony of you posting this when you're cruising around in your Mercedes. :banana::banana:

"Welcome to outsourcing. This is the sign of things to come."

Did the article say that the new Ford would not be built in America? I mean, thanks to an environment prohibitive to business, it probably won't be, but I missed anything transitioning us to outsourcing.



On the subject of outsourcing, high fuel prices are a big motivator in the recent trend of bringing previously outsourced manufacturing back to the USA. Paying to ship goods 7,000+ miles is starting to make outsourcing less and less attractive.

 

[Richard L]

KL,

But Europe penalizes gasoline use via prohibitive taxes--they drove 3 cylinder machines because they "wanted" to (or the people they have in power wanted them to, more aptly). They, unlike us, didn't have to.

Does it really matter whether the high price of gas is due to high taxes...we have politicians with the same mindset here in the USA? The consumer just sees it as High Prices!

Did you mean to use a 4 there, cause gas already was over that in my area, and is now only a quarter shy of of the evil 4 dollar threshold.

Yes I meant $4.00 a gallon. I know gas prices are still at $4.00 a gallon in some locations but I am talking about the National average price which today is $3.77 a gallon (that is a mix of regular and premium blends). Economist indicate that $4.00 a gallon is the trigger point where the price of gas can cause economic chaos and people will make a concerted effort to save fuel. Of course this target price creeps upward nearly every year.

I hated the Drive-by-Wire delay. However the Drive-by-Wire delay could be eliminated by the manufacturer. Turbo lag/spool cannot be.

Not true any more. In the past exhaust gasses were diverted away from the exhaust turbine of the turbocharger which slowed it down. That required time to build up speed, hence "Turbo Lag" Newer turbo systems like the STS turbos, continue to force exhaust gas through the exhaust turbine to constantly spin the turbo at nearly full speed. Intake boost control valves make boost pressure nearly instantaneous. Actually, the fly by wire delay is more of an issue with consumers than turbo lag. However there is no guarantee that YOU will be satisfied with the performance...There is always a trade off between power and gas mileage and you are underestimating what properly sized differential and transmission gear ratios can do for acceleration.

I just need a guarantee that I can accelerate in a realistic timeframe, while carrying probable weight, in this new Ford. I've been known to carpool--could this proposed Ford truly handle 4 adults on the harrowing DC commute? On your note, I hope that this unter-car is fun to drive and has great handling.

The bigger and heavier the vehicle the more HP you need to accelerate, and the more gas it requires. I lived in the DC area for about 5 years, and the harrowing commute barely exceeds 35 MPH because of the bumber to bumper traffic. Most trucks cannot accelerate that fast yet they servive on the Beltway...again it's just an American mindset that we have to have this huge reserve of HP...just in case they need it?



I never said this new Ford vehicle was the ideal Car Pool vehicle or even a family vehicle for a large family. Statistics show that the average vehicle driving on our highways has an occupancy rate of 1.5 people...Do you need a 15-20 MPG, 200+HP, 4300 lb vehicle for that kind of trip?



There will always be people who justifiably need larger vehicles and will be willing to pay the high gas prices. For those who want to drive a smaller, high mileage vehicle, Ford's new vehicle seems to be a step in the right direction, and I think it will start the other American car companies scrambling to catch up as gas prices continue to climb.

BTW, I gotta :rofl: at the irony of you posting this when you're cruising around in your Mercedes.

It's not so funny or ironic. It was a very practical buy if you consider that I traded in a 4300 lbs Sport Trac that got about 17 MPG in the city and a best of 22 MPG on the highway and I got $11K trade-in which was $1000 over the listed trade-in value. This in Jan 2008, which was about 2 months before gas prices went through the roof in 2008 and the bottom fell out of the SUV values. So my timing was perfect (just lucky I guess :grin



In stark contrast to my two Sport Tracs, my Mercedes averages 24MPG in the city and 32 MPG on the highway while cruising at 70-75 MPH. The MB's ride, handling, "Acceleration", performance, brakes, comfort, and overall driving fun would run circles around the Sport Trac. For everyday hauling and towing chores I purchased a used 2002 Toyota Hylander for my work vehicle, which has more HP and also gets better gas mileage then my Sport Tracs did. (19-20 MPG city, 26-27 MPG highway, 22-23 MPG mixed driving)



If Ford builds this little car, I might consider buying one and getting rid of the Toyota since now I am retired and I really don't need that much hauling/towing capability anymore.



...Rich

 

[Kevin Lang]

I lived in the DC area for about 5 years, and the harrowing commute barely exceeds 35 MPH because of the bumber to bumper traffic. Most trucks cannot accelerate that fast yet they servive on the Beltway...again it's just an American mindset that we have to have this huge reserve of HP...just in case they need it?

Traffic only crawls as you approach the Beltway. Traffic on roads to get to the Washington Beltway (495) is at-speed and cutthroat, particularly on 295, where many major interchanges employ shared merge lanes. If you can't get up to speed in time, you're in trouble.



The ramp to I-95 south from 695 has an incredibly short merge lane, so it has the same issues.



The ramp from Route 100 to I-95 south has a fairly long ramp and merge lane, but it has a ridiculously inconvenient merge of the ramps from Route 100 E->I-95 S, and Route 100 W->I-95 S, which forces a slowdown, again requiring real acceleration.



Finally we have the ramp from Route 32 West to I-95 S, which spits you out directly in the far left lane of I-95. If you can't accelerate timely to speeds FAR in excess of 60 mph, you're in trouble.



That's just from Baltimore->DC. Frederick->DC has some inclines on I-270. Now while they're minor inclines, they would be all too major if I were in an underpowered car.

I never said this new Ford vehicle was the ideal Car Pool vehicle or even a family vehicle for a large family.

The average family size in America is 3.14 people. Can the car handle them? True, you did not say these things, nor did I attribute them to you, but they are implied by circumstances. With gas near 4 bucks & predicted to rise, will people be able to afford having separate "family" cars and "commuter" cars? It would also be a step backwards if Ford's offering were incapable of carpooling.

It's not so funny or ironic. It was a very practical buy if you consider that I traded in a 4300 lbs Sport Trac that got about 17 MPG in the city and a best of 22 MPG on the highway and I got $11K trade-in which was $1000 over the listed trade-in value.

Okay, that's not even a germane rebuttal and you know it. You propped up the Europeans for making small, sporty, and efficient cars. I countered by pointing out your behemoth European Mercedes, a car which you delight in telling us takes as much oil as several American cars. So you try to compare your Mercedes, an rather inefficient car designed for power & luxury over economy, to a truck?! You've made a straw man out of the ST, congratulations :banghead:

(Your MB might run irrelevant circles around the ST on fuel economy, but your vaunted small Euro cars would blow the MB out of the water on fuel economy, wouldn't they?)



Oh, and as I said in the first post, it's hilarious. Especially since there's further irony when you decry the "American mindset" which mandates overpowered cars, yet are driving one yourself. I didn't intend my original comment to be serious, I was just joking around, but if you're going to get ridiculously & unjustifiably defensive over it, then I'll play along.

Statistics show that the average vehicle driving on our highways has an occupancy rate of 1.5 people...Do you need a 15-20 MPG, 200+HP, 4300 lb vehicle for that kind of trip?

Actually yes, many times I do. I use the highway to get to the dump. I use the highway to make trips to Home Depot. I use the highway to haul large objects around, often with a need to also carry a few people to assist with said heavy objects. (Which means I'm responsible for kicking the avg person count up to 1.5 :grin Only my 15-20 MPG, 200+HP, 4300 lb vehicle can do these things.



My more fuel-efficient cars, which I use when merely commuting on the highway, cannot do these things.

 

[Richard L]

KL,

My Mercedes is a small C300 Sport. It is actually a little smaller than a Honda Accord. It weighs about 3600 lbs and has a 3.0 ltr engine with 228 HP and a 7 speed overdrive transmission.



I only brought that up because you mentioned I drove a Mercedes and assumed it is a behemoth 5000 lbs, gas guzzling land yatch.



I am sure that you are not a candidate to buy this new small Ford and neither are a lot of people. I just think it is in a step in the right direction, and that many people will find that this vehicle can fit into their life style, much as the BMW/Mini Cooper fits into many people's idea of a small economical mini car...But the starting price of the BMW/Mini Cooper is over $19K and more than most people want to spend for a small economy car. If Ford can keep the cost of their little 3 cylinder car to about $14-$15K or less, they will sell a lot of them. And the higher the gas prices go, the more they will sell.



The article never mentioned the HP of the new mini Ford, so I don't think it will be in the 15-20 HP range since they will probably rate it at the max HP with the Turbo, etc. My guess is that it will probably fall in the 75-100 HP range.



As for the DC traffic, I lived in Tacoma Park, MD my first time in DC and Woodbridge, VA the second time I was there. So I am familiar with driving up I-95 and found it to be a slow movig parking lot during rush hour. :grin:



Now if you need acceleration, then the freeways around Dallas and Austin will require you to have plenty of reserve HP since you will need to merge into 75-80 MPH traffic. Perhaps extending the length of the entry ramps might allow for a more gradual acceleration to fit the newer and smaller engines of the future???



Again, I must state that these small vehicles are not for everyone, and probably not for you, but for simply commuting back and forth to work, they are ideal for many people and will probably sell very well. And if gas prices continue to climb, they will probably have a lot of these on backorder.



You seem to be rejecting these vehicles, site unseeen, which seems to be very premature??

Would it not be more prudent to reserve your judgement until you can see and test drive the vehicle?



...Rich.