The 1-liter, three-cylinder EcoBoost engine is coming to the US.

[BrooklynBay]

http://autos.aol.com/article/ford-3...rid10|htmlws-sb-bb|dl18|sec3_lnk1&pLid=236618

 

[explorinitup]

YEP it going to be in the feista

 

[Thuggsy]

YEP it going to be in the feista

also available for lawn mowers, golf carts, and mules

 

[Anime]

123 Horsepower. 40+ MPG.


Well, at least with the turbo it's got better HP ratings than the 4-cylinders of the 80's that got 40-50MPG but only had 60-80 HP.

Now maybe if they got around to deliberately improving the efficiency and mileage an internal combustion engine gets, we'd start getting somewhere - using less gas.

 

[obie]

123 Horsepower. 40+ MPG.


Well, at least with the turbo it's got better HP ratings than the 4-cylinders of the 80's that got 40-50MPG but only had 60-80 HP.

Now maybe if they got around to deliberately improving the efficiency and mileage an internal combustion engine gets, we'd start getting somewhere - using less gas.

Too bad the US doesn't start following Europe's example and start putting more diesels on the road. I'd love to have a half ton truck with a twin turbo 4 cylinder diesel from the factory. It'd be great if they could bring the price of a diesel option down a bit too.

 

[BrooklynBay]

Since the price of diesel fuel is more than regular gasoline, the amount that it cost to drive a diesel equipped vehicle with highter efficiency would be about the same. When are they coming out with a diesel hybrid?

 

[Flag Gibby]

The EPA has got the small diesel engine market in a bind here because the additional parts required to meet regulations makes them cost prohibitive to produce when you can turbocharge a gas engine and get almost the same efficiency. That is why Ford is focusing on smaller turbocharged engines with direct injection/ignition and variable cam and valves.

 

[BrooklynBay]

This should be used to get more power & efficiency out of these small engines: http://wardsauto.com/suppliers/fuel...bayarsky@aol.com&YM_MID=1354169&sfvc4enews=42

 

[JCat]

I owned the original 1978 Fiesta. It had a 1.6 4-banger.

It got me from Detroit to Orlando for $36 in gas. Too bad Ford designed it to self-destruct by 100,000 miles.

I can only imagine how long this new 1 liter engine will last.

 

[Anime]

If the US really cared about mileage, the modern internal combustion engine could be tuned for it. A 1.5-1.6L engine in the 80's with a 2bbl carburetor got 40-50MPG. A 1.3-1.5L direct injection, electronically controlled w/variable valve timing engine in 2012 gets 30-40 MPG. Hmm.

There's also the option of 100% ethanol. From sugar cane, which Brazil is doing. Can't have that with the corn lobby in the US though.

If you do enough research, it's pretty obvious the efficiency and mileage of engines, not to mention fuel, is restricted by corporations who have a big interest in keeping things at a certain level. Otherwise we'd be driving cars that were at least a little more fuel efficient than what was available 20-30 years ago.

 

[sport97]

If the US really cared about mileage, the modern internal combustion engine could be tuned for it. A 1.5-1.6L engine in the 80's with a 2bbl carburetor got 40-50MPG. A 1.3-1.5L direct injection, electronically controlled w/variable valve timing engine in 2012 gets 30-40 MPG. Hmm.

There's also the option of 100% ethanol. From sugar cane, which Brazil is doing. Can't have that with the corn lobby in the US though.

If you do enough research, it's pretty obvious the efficiency and mileage of engines, not to mention fuel, is restricted by corporations who have a big interest in keeping things at a certain level. Otherwise we'd be driving cars that were at least a little more fuel efficient than what was available 20-30 years ago.

Strict emissions regulations probably don't help efficiency in the engines either though...

Also regarding the sugar, yea, the corn industry won't let that one in, but also brazil grows its own sugar. We would have to import it. We grow corn so that is what we use. Its worthless anyway because the tax payer subsidizes an absurd amount of money each gallon to keep it cheaper than gas...

 

[BrooklynBay]

The cars back then didn't have as many electronic systems, wiring harnesses, and extra parts that the cars have today. This adds to the weight of the vehicle which also causes mileage to decline. The body material on today's cars is considerably lighter than the heavy gauge steel that was previously used. I guess the weight ratio balances out.

 

[Anime]

Actually an engine that's more efficient has fewer, and 'cleaner' emissions, so it does help when emissions regulations drive innovation in the internal combustion motor.

The weight thing has been used a lot as an excuse, but the vehicles from the early 80's weighed about the same. There were plenty from the late 80's that were much lighter than modern ones, but still only a few hundred lbs/kg.

I'm taking straight engine to engine comparison though, even without the cars. You would think an engine of the same displacement with all of the newer technology in fuel delivery and variable timing and computer controlled ignition would make a huge difference. It seems to result in better horsepower/torque numbers, but no better mileage. I think it's intentional, even if that sounds like a conspiracy. Not much of a stretch for oil/energy companies to conspire to keep consumption levels where they want them.

 

[IZwack]

There were plenty from the late 80's that were much lighter than modern ones, but still only a few hundred lbs/kg.

A few hundred lbs makes a difference - drive a modern compact car with only you in it -vs- you plus two or three more passengers. The difference will be noticable on mountains and you may just have to downshift one gear to keep the speed up.

One thing that is not really helping MPG numbers these days are that cars have gotten a lot "bigger" in physical dimensions (even compact cars) which doesnt exactly improve drag. Compare the 2nd gen Explorer with the latest Explorer - the latter is considerably larger in size. Compare the late mid-90s Camry with today's Camry - huge difference.

 

[snoranger]

One thing that is not really helping MPG numbers these days are that cars have gotten a lot "bigger" in physical dimensions

So have the drivers.

 

[IZwack]

So have the drivers.

Ahaha true. But fear not, there's hope (!!!) , Twinkies are gone (with one of the reasons being that Americans are consuming less and less of that stuff per year)

 

[rickybobby]

the biggest problem is the consumer. If i had an option for 50mpg's but only 49hp or 35mpg's but 125hp, i would certianly not choose the former ever again. while the economy of the geo metro 1.0 was friggin insane (managed 57 more than a few times) that thing couldnt hold freeway speeds with even the slightest hills, took a mile to get to speed on the highway, and it couldnt get out of its own way. Im certain that the majority of consumers see it from my point of veiw as well. The 70's, 80's, and early 90's cars that made 40-50mpg's were designed out of neccesity, and when the need went away people stopped buying cars that were than efficient and started buying cars that had reasonable power again. In todays market the consumer isnt willing to sacrifice nearly as many of the creature comforts or power for the economy, and the manufacturers arent going to make something unless the consumer is wanting it.

 

[IZwack]

^--- speaks the truth! Technology and advancements can only take us so far, it is the mindset and the culture that needs to change, and remember the lessons from the past.