Second year in a row, Ford Engine of the Year.

[Spazdog]

Round 2 of the 3 cylinder in the US:

Round 1 brought us the Canadian (CAMI) Suzuki/Geo Metro, Subaru Justy and Daihatsu Charade.
The Geo Metro was a Geo Metro...'nuff said.
The Justy was the only inline Subaru I can think of in the US. Seemed like a pretty good little car with either a manual transmission with synchronizers made of wet toilet paper or a CVT that no one could maintain or repair. For a 3-banger, it was reasonably quick(if you can get it to shift) and could be equipped with AWD.
The Daihatsu Charade had a nice solid "thunk" when you closed the door and regular Toyota grade interior (which was pretty good at that time).....and it somehow managed to feel even slower than the Metro.

They sold a ton of Metros. Not so many Justies and Charades.

But nobody really wanted a fuel sipping triple.

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
I walk through a huge parking lot with the dog every day. Almost every Ford I look at from mid 2k to present has a crystal clear tailpipe, like they are running on water. No carbon at all. No carbon, no oil burning. Wonder what they do different vs. others makes.


That continues to amaze me on my Duratec 30/MZI Mazda.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
The intention is to know why Ford uses a cast iron block.


I'm glad you got your answer.

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Round 2 of the 3 cylinder in the US:

Round 1 brought us the Canadian (CAMI) Suzuki/Geo Metro, Subaru Justy and Daihatsu Charade.
The Geo Metro was a Geo Metro...'nuff said.
The Justy was the only inline Subaru I can think of in the US. Seemed like a pretty good little car with either a manual transmission with synchronizers made of wet toilet paper or a CVT that no one could maintain or repair. For a 3-banger, it was reasonably quick(if you can get it to shift) and could be equipped with AWD.
The Daihatsu Charade had a nice solid "thunk" when you closed the door and regular Toyota grade interior (which was pretty good at that time).....and it somehow managed to feel even slower than the Metro.

They sold a ton of Metros. Not so many Justies and Charades.

But nobody really wanted a fuel sipping triple.

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
I walk through a huge parking lot with the dog every day. Almost every Ford I look at from mid 2k to present has a crystal clear tailpipe, like they are running on water. No carbon at all. No carbon, no oil burning. Wonder what they do different vs. others makes.


That continues to amaze me on my Duratec 30/MZI Mazda.

Don't forget the awesome Ford Festiva-I still see a few of those puddle jumpers sputtering around.

 

[A_Harman]

148 ft*lbs of torque from 61 cubic inches. No wonder they use an iron block. That's higher bmep than most, if not all, diesels. I wouldn't be surprised if they're using CGI instead of grey. It will be interesting to see if such a heavily loaded gasoline engine has good reliability when put into 2-ton SUV's. If the turbo is boosting all of the time at mid-range rpm's, the engine will not get good fuel economy.

 

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I love what Ford and GM are doing with lower displacement turbocharged engines. I've never hid the fact that I grew up on larger displacement V-8 engines, and simply prefer the higher-revving nature of smaller engines.....

I digressed. I'm pleased to see the engineering effort going into making these smaller engines work, and work well. I share others' concerns about long-term durability, but I'm still very excited about the future...especially tunability of these FI engines.

I prefer higher-revving engines, too, as you can see based on the vehicles I own.

However I really think your optimism is misplaced based on current offerings. Here's why:
If you start paying close attention to reviews you will find that when a NA V6 is mixed in with Turbo I4s in a comparison, the V6 is always appreciated for its smooth power delivery. Sure it's subjective but you will find that point made in every such review.
But here's the part that's of paramount importance; when you look at the (stupid, inadequate) EPA test methodology these engines don't really see any significant level of boost. Once boost comes on it is physically impossible for one of these smaller engines to do the work it needs to without altering the fuel-air mixture in a way that a naturally aspirated engine doesn't need to, they cannot maintain a stoichiometric mixture under load where a NA engine can for a period of time. Here's a chart I typed up from Consumer Reports who did a good article on this; their numbers make a lot of sense as real-world figures and the physics back it up.

I'm not saying there isn't hope for this type of technology, the Germans are nearly there, but for the most part the automakers aren't doing this for you and me, they're doing it to check off boxes for EPA regulations and then using the results of methodology they know is flawed to sell you and me cars with "great" fuel efficiency.

 

[Michael_P]

In 20 years that 1.0T 3cyl EcoBoost will be the big engine option on the police interceptors.

 

[notech47]

two 1.0s made into a V6...
0

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Originally Posted By: EType
Cast iron block for faster warm up.

Where does it state cast iron? Why would cast iron warm faster than thin aluminum so many use? The question comes from the Toyota side. The newer ford engines generally don't burn any oil, most Toyotas do. Toyotas have a thin aluminum blocks. The consumption problems are the pistons, oil flashing, heat. So I'm thinking cast iron dissipates heat better, why the fords don't see the oil consumption. Cooler pistons.
Cast iron dissipates heat "better"...???? I guess that's why heat sinks on electronic devices are all ......aluminum.

 

[astronomy]

Originally Posted By: gofast182



they're doing it to check off boxes for EPA regulations and then using the results of methodology they know is flawed to sell you and me cars with "great" fuel efficiency.




The chart sure seems to indicate that. The 2.0L turbo Fusion getting real world 22MPG? That's pathetic for 2013 for a car that size. My 1998 Malibu with a 3.1 V6 and 285K was averaging that in mixed driving.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: astronomy
Originally Posted By: gofast182



they're doing it to check off boxes for EPA regulations and then using the results of methodology they know is flawed to sell you and me cars with "great" fuel efficiency.


+1 It's cheaper

The chart sure seems to indicate that. The 2.0L turbo Fusion getting real world 22MPG? That's pathetic for 2013 for a car that size. My 1998 Malibu with a 3.1 V6 and 285K was averaging that in mixed driving.

 

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: gofast182
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I love what Ford and GM are doing with lower displacement turbocharged engines. I've never hid the fact that I grew up on larger displacement V-8 engines, and simply prefer the higher-revving nature of smaller engines.....

I digressed. I'm pleased to see the engineering effort going into making these smaller engines work, and work well. I share others' concerns about long-term durability, but I'm still very excited about the future...especially tunability of these FI engines.

I prefer higher-revving engines, too, as you can see based on the vehicles I own.

However I really think your optimism is misplaced based on current offerings. Here's why:
If you start paying close attention to reviews you will find that when a NA V6 is mixed in with Turbo I4s in a comparison, the V6 is always appreciated for its smooth power delivery. Sure it's subjective but you will find that point made in every such review.
But here's the part that's of paramount importance; when you look at the (stupid, inadequate) EPA test methodology these engines don't really see any significant level of boost. Once boost comes on it is physically impossible for one of these smaller engines to do the work it needs to without altering the fuel-air mixture in a way that a naturally aspirated engine doesn't need to, they cannot maintain a stoichiometric mixture under load where a NA engine can for a period of time. Here's a chart I typed up from Consumer Reports who did a good article on this; their numbers make a lot of sense as real-world figures and the physics back it up.

I'm not saying there isn't hope for this type of technology, the Germans are nearly there, but for the most part the automakers aren't doing this for you and me, they're doing it to check off boxes for EPA regulations and then using the results of methodology they know is flawed to sell you and me cars with "great" fuel efficiency.



Sorry guys, forgot to shade the X3...

 

[LeakySeals]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Originally Posted By: EType
Cast iron block for faster warm up.

Where does it state cast iron? Why would cast iron warm faster than thin aluminum so many use? The question comes from the Toyota side. The newer ford engines generally don't burn any oil, most Toyotas do. Toyotas have a thin aluminum blocks. The consumption problems are the pistons, oil flashing, heat. So I'm thinking cast iron dissipates heat better, why the fords don't see the oil consumption. Cooler pistons.
Cast iron dissipates heat "better"...???? I guess that's why heat sinks on electronic devices are all ......aluminum.

Good point, I should have thought to compare the heat sink on my cpu to an engine with oil and a piston.

 

[astronomy]

Well, cast iron dissipates heat "better" in that it dissipates heat much more evenly. We can agree on that, right?

 

[IndyIan]

Isn't the point of the small turbo motors, to have a smaller engine for good cruising mileage, but still has enough hp to produce adequate acceleration?
At least for me, I find I get the best mileage if I drive almost in a binary fashion, either accelerate briskly or cruising. No long gradual changes in speed where the engine is making some power inefficiently. I think this habit kills mileage more with the small turbo motors than with a larger NA motor.

 

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Isn't the point of the small turbo motors, to have a smaller engine for good cruising mileage, but still has enough hp to produce adequate acceleration?
At least for me, I find I get the best mileage if I drive almost in a binary fashion, either accelerate briskly or cruising. No long gradual changes in speed where the engine is making some power inefficiently. I think this habit kills mileage more with the small turbo motors than with a larger NA motor.


This is true. Much better [mpg-wise] to get to speed and cruise, then slowly accelerate for longer.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Yes. Pulse-and-glide works for most cars...not just hybrids. As long as you don't floorboard it (and get into power enrichment), you generally do best by accelerating briskly and then cruising.

 

[LeakySeals]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Wikipedia says that the block is cast iron for 50% faster warm-up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EcoBoost_engine#1.0_L_EcoBoost_I-3

Hold on a second!!! If a cast iron block means 50% faster warm-up, that means a cast iron block is BETTER at heat dissipation than an aluminum block. You cant warm something large faster if the area of heat is small. The biggest heat source is the combustion chamber. The faster you dissipate the combustion heat throughout the block, the faster the engine will warmup overall. (oil and coolant passing by).

If there is bad or poor heat dissipation with aluminum blocks, "hot spots" around the pistons and the wrong oil could flash leaving deposits. Eventually give you oil consumption from deposit buildup. If the cast iron block dissipates heat better, it decreases hotspots around the pistons, lessening the chance of oil consumption (from flashed oil, stuck rings, clogged holes, etc).

Its important to drag Toyota in for a minute.. From wiki.. "50% faster warm-up, at the expense of additional weight". Ahh. This is the claim I make about Toyota hacking the aluminum block to a skeleton to decrease weight. And what is that cost? Where Ford chose cast iron, the cost was weight and little less mpg. But Toyota chose thin aluminum for MPG, and the cost was hotspots around the pistons causing oil consumption and stripped headbolt threads.

 

[Hokiefyd]

I'm not sure it makes total sense to me either. I thought we moved away from iron blocks to aluminum blocks for faster warmup and better heat dissipation.

 

[Nick R]

We moved away from iron blocks to aluminum for weight, primarily. Cast iron heas more evenly than aluminum- that's why cast iron pans are some of the best. Aluminum is cheaper and ligher. Think how heavy a cast iron CPU cooler would be- that's why we don't use them. It would weigh a ton, and would put a lot of stress on the motherboard. But with newer technology, iron can be light too- the cruz 1.4L is a good example of that, it's an iron block.

But for the most part, aluminum is a lot lighter, which helps save weight for gas mileage.

 

[morepwr]

Well good for Ford! I don't know that I would want one of those just yet. Let them pile on some miles for a few years and see how they do in the long run.