Quote:
Originally Posted by tjts1
Yeah, this is pathetic technology for technology's sake. The naturally aspirated 2.0 already in the Focus is more efficient and more powerful.
|
Not really.
These are powerful engines for their displacement - but they're really efficient when you don't go near that power because you don't need it.
The turbo (and twin turbos on bigger, though similar engine concepts) is what makes them develop diesel-like torque at diesel-like rpm - below 200rpm !
And it comes with diesel-like fuel consumption from a gasser.
Quote:
|
This 1.0 rattle can is for the eco freak feel good crowd that likes to show off and not much else.
|
Show off, in the US, with a 1L triple engine ?
You run more risk of being the laughing stock ...
These engines are all that's needed, and the extra oomph is there in order not to scare away the customers.
In the Fiesta, it has all the merits to become the new Metro.
Quote:
|
Anyone want to take bets on how long before the oil lubricated timing BELT becomes a class action nightmare?
|
Why should it ?
Ford has plenty of experience with belts in their (and PSA) diesels.
The one in my car (110 HP and half again as much torque than the 1L Ecoboost) is rated for 240.000 km or 150.000 miles, and despite all other issues with the engines, there are no problems with the belt.
These cars are what ecomodders have been asking for in new cars, or have been searching for in ancient cars.
The weight-increase trend is reversed, engine size is reduced.
The F150 Ecoboost challenge has shown what the technology can do, I'd love to see PaleMelanesian get his hypermiling hands on one of them.