How Does That Old Saying Go?

[24seven 104]

"There's no replacement for displacement..."

 

Get back to your Mcdonalds and your 244cui, 150bhp V8, yank!

[EdCherry 34 1 Cars]

Shame the wheel bearings are shagged by now and the fact it probably cost them a couple of hundred quid in wear for one lap.

 

Well done Ford for yet another publicity stunt for your disappearing cash cow.

[24seven 104]

What's that got to do with wheel bearings?

[GLPoomobile 958]

Impressive. You can already picture the typical arguments that will appear under the Youtube videos, from the illiterate and moronic element of the USA who feel the need to talk bollocks on every car video they don't like

[johnnyboy666 195 1 Cars]

so how did they get 205bhp out of that engine? I thought it was 125bhp? plus an extra 20 from the 'superchip'?

I must've missed something

[welshpug 1,657]

MOAR BOOOOST!

 

145 is when its superchipped in the Focus.

[Baz 421]

Another pointless publicity stunt that has very little real use to a consumer...

[kee 22]

shows the capabilites of the engine though, I wanted to put one in my mk1 fiesta

[johnnyboy666 195 1 Cars]

I dont suppose it'll be too long before you see 'conversion kits' to allow these engines to be bolted in a lot of small cars. I'd like to have a drive of one to see what it's like and how the power is delivered, i'd like to think it'd be like driving a small TU engine thats loves it when you keep the revs high

[MiniGibbo 142]

Ford showing they're top of there game..

 

Fair play.

[24seven 104]

Ford showing they're top of there game..

 

Fair play.

 

Exactly this. I don't understand how it could be a failed or pointless publicity stunt. They set out to showcase what their engines can do and they did a damm good job of it. The whole world is downsizing engines, even the American's are beginning to cotton on to that (despite my stereotypical criticism in the original post). WRC have already done it, F1 is doing it and road cars have been doing it for a while. This is Ford showing the consumer that they've got a pretty good hand in this game.

[Batfink 201]

To be honest these small engines are great. We need the mundane A to B cars to be as fuel efficient as possible so we can continue for as long as possible with our toy cars with the old school larger displacement normally aspirated engines.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Batfink

[hcmini1989 16]

Exactly this. I don't understand how it could be a failed or pointless publicity stunt. They set out to showcase what their engines can do and they did a damm good job of it. The whole world is downsizing engines, even the American's are beginning to cotton on to that (despite my stereotypical criticism in the original post). WRC have already done it, F1 is doing it and road cars have been doing it for a while. This is Ford showing the consumer that they've got a pretty good hand in this game.

 

I dont think its all that great tbh .It does`nt show how reliable the engine is it could be just a throw away engine aswell.Im pretty sure if you turbo charged the 3 cylinder vauxhall lump you could probably get similar power out of it and with a decent map on the engine you could probably get similar mpg figures just nobody has botherd .All depends on how much time and money you have .

 

Look at a tubo charged hyabusa engine its only a little big bigger and one more cylinder but produce double what the ford engine kicks out .Its all abit gimickey for me .

[kyepan 291]

they can do what they like to the engines, it's modern cars ever increasing weight that needs addressing.

 

Paul13 was telling me about a chap on here (jimistdt IIRC) who had a 1.9td from a 306 in his little 205, and was getting 89... yes 89... to the gallon with a heavy right foot.

 

Gordon murray is onto the right track, tubular chassis, bonded composite materials, small engine, light weight.. Get cars under 500kgs and you'll see massive efficiency increases. Cars are in general too big, and not fit for the modern day patterns of car usage.

 

J

[24seven 104]

I dont think its all that great tbh .It does`nt show how reliable the engine is it could be just a throw away engine aswell.Im pretty sure if you turbo charged the 3 cylinder vauxhall lump you could probably get similar power out of it and with a decent map on the engine you could probably get similar mpg figures just nobody has botherd .All depends on how much time and money you have .

 

Look at a tubo charged hyabusa engine its only a little big bigger and one more cylinder but produce double what the ford engine kicks out .Its all abit gimickey for me .

 

 

Exactly. Ford did, and they're reaping the PR benefits. If the engines go into road cars, then the reliability can be assumed to be there - what manufacturer would fit throwaway engines into their 100k mile warranty road cars? This isn't supposed to advertise performance options for your base model Focus. It's a technical exercise demonstrating the company's engineering prowess with their modern engines. In the same way the Audi Le Mans program isn't supposed to sell people 600bhp V10 TDi engines for their A3.

 

And you really can't compare a Hayabusa engine to a 3cylinder Ecoboost... Apples and oranges.

 

 

they can do what they like to the engines, it's modern cars ever increasing weight that needs addressing.

 

Paul13 was telling me about a chap on here (jimistdt IIRC) who had a 1.9td from a 306 in his little 205, and was getting 89... yes 89... to the gallon with a heavy right foot.

 

Gordon murray is onto the right track, tubular chassis, bonded composite materials, small engine, light weight.. Get cars under 500kgs and you'll see massive efficiency increases. Cars are in general too big, and not fit for the modern day patterns of car usage.

 

J

 

 

I agree that cars need to be lighter and this will happen. I'll try and find the reference, but I read somewhere that from the 70s - late 90s cars generally got lighter, whereas in the last 10 years or so they've gained an average of around 100kg. The amount of equipment filtering down from high-end to low-end cars in the last decade no doubt is responsible for this, as well as all the extra safety features that are required now. To an extent I can see this trend slowing down, simply because there's not as much left to filter down any more, which means that as the constant development of "lighter and better" continues, vehicle weights will generally go down again.

[Anthony 1,003]

I'd argue that weight was piling on long before the late 90's - stuff was becoming lardy by the early 90's, as that's when crash structures and mod-cons like aircon, ABS and electric everything started becoming commonplace.

 

From a Peugeot perspective, look at the 309 to 306 (early 80's to early 90's) and 405 to 406 (mid-80's to mid-90's) where you've typically gained 200kg or more.

 

I'm still not convinced by the real-world economy of these modern small engines though, particularly anything turbocharged - whilst still pretty good by the standards of a decade ago, I think it's fair to say that they often fall well short of the "official" figures (look up Fiat's twin-air for a good example of this).

 

As for the Ecoboost Formula Ford - from a PR and advertising point of view, it's an absolute winner.

[S@m 156]

I would agree with the modern turbo engines not making the manufacturers claimed mpg figures in the real world. It almost seems as if they know the speeds/parameters of the mpg testing so well that they can set up the engine to be way 'off boost' and falsely economical in such a way that cannot be done with an n/a engine. Yet in the real world the n/a engines make book figures and the turbos do not.

 

At least that's how it seems at times.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Sam306

[harryskid 193]

You wont like this but most modern cars are a load of crap!

[kyepan 291]

You wont like this but most modern cars are a load of crap!

i do like that, a lot, and genuinely don't understand why people by them

 

 

Aren't those lightly boosted engines actually producing better brake mean specific fuel consumption when on boost though... I thought the whole point of them was to run a decent amount of throttle angle and a low enough amount of boost to work at compressor and petrol optimums to get the cylinder pressures up and produce relatively economical torque with the advantages of turbo, but not the drawbacks. Granted you'd be right that under low load they would use very very little fuel because the static compression ratio is much higher than traditional 80's and 90's style turbo for power cars.

 

for example a 1000cc engine running half a bar of boost would only be using the equivalent of a 1500cc engine at low revs, which is still not much, but might be producing more torque at 2500 than a naturally aspirated 1500 at high revs on full chat.

 

I think the modern 2krpm on boost turbo charged engines show more power where people need it for normal driving than our traditional idea of big laggy 3500 rpm wallop disco potatoes of old.

 

Cars need to be lighter though, if they ploughed as much effort into composite production techniques as they do into gadgets and needless safety devices that only (and i can't believe i'm saying this) reduce the chances of injury through accident that would mostly be avoided by better driver training.... we would be in a better place.

 

And another thing - the car is stil seen as a luxury item, a cherished status symbol of the late 20th century consumer boom, it's like a house, in terms of it's stature and a tag to hang around your neck for social acceptability. Bigger, blinger, better, out of control. If someone said i could buy something akined to a kart in size, with a carbon safety cell with performance and usability combined, economical fuel costs, i'd stop dreaming about classic porsches and 3 rotor conversions on my hairdresser rag top in about half a second, put a deposit down and get on with it.

 

I'd much rather pay 5k for a carbon cell, 3k for a decent engine.. and forget about the rest.

Edited September 5, 2012 by kyepan

[harryskid 193]

I agree with that, plus a lot of em look the same and are full of crappy gadgets !

[Batfink 201]

I like my large modern car for no thrills driving. 170bhp on tap and an average motorway 50mpg fully laden at 70mph but then I have two kids and all the essentials that are required. If I didnt I'd run a tiny car with tiny engine

 

I believe we are soon nearing a shift in public perception regarding the car. I dont think its regarded as a luxury - more a necessity. For years the car was required for travel. Shops moved to large out of town retail parks and we travelled far and wide to do everything in life. We moved further and further from our place of work as well as away from family and friends.

 

I think this will change as fuel and running costs increase beyond what is considered acceptable to all. Cars will have to become cheaper to run or demand will stop

In 5 - 10 years there will be more local services and businesses. We may even get better community spirit as people actually know their neighbours!

 

With that in mind I moved my business 5 miles from where I live, ditched my car and bought a pedal bike, I walk to the shops, and only use the car when its essential. Business wise i'm doing more trade with local businesses so theres a nice little network forming.

 

I may be ahead of my time or completely wrong but I have more money in my pockets that for sure (which still is not a lot lol) best of all I don't have to have a s*itty commute 50 miles or so a day!

 

Kev

Edited September 6, 2012 by Batfink

[dcc 855]

I did my dissertation basically on what you've said Kev, it will be a form of 'sin wave'. in th enext 15 years there will be cheap out of town land, so people will buy it for various reasons, then in a further 20 years we will have electric tram/rail systems where these places will be accessible for next to nothing, so the shift will be moving from towncentres (pre 1960 - where Out Of Town retails began) to OOT, to centre, back to OOT and so forth.

 

The only thing which will change is the way in which we travel, not the fact that we will travel.