Ford Fiesta 1.0L triple to get cylinder deactivation

[MJamson]

Seams a small engine for that size of car.

It has definately been made with the european market in mind, whereby buyers select cars party on their tax/emissions group.

There are numerous examples of having where having a bigger engine and paying more tax yeilds fuel savings and overall lower costs.

[Ecky]

I've been seeing some articles come up lately about how downsized turbo engines are more often than not delivering worse fuel economy, or at least no better, than the larger displacement engines they're replacing, at least with your typical driver. I'm not sure if it's just a matter of engineering, but it usually seems to be the case that with the higher compression, timing needs to be pulled and/or AFR goes rich, causing them to be less efficient when producing power under boost than a NA engine. Small turbo motors are great for people who stay out of boost, but most people have lead feet.

That said, 148lb-ft of torque down at 1400rpm is plenty of usable power for a ~2500lb vehicle. I'd argue that making up the power difference with an electric motor is probably more efficient, but then you have to pay for and lug around a battery too.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by Ecky

I've been seeing some articles come up lately about how downsized turbo engines are more often than not delivering worse fuel economy, or at least no better, than the larger displacement engines they're replacing

I've read that multiple times as well. I wonder if the real world data shows it (ie. Fuelly-type aggregate data).

I wonder if it's partly a case that the writers producing the articles are typical gearhead enthusiasts with axes to grind on the topic of efficiency.

EG: one Canadian auto journosaur I regularly follow today said that "only diesel engines exceed their EPA ratings." And he will repeat that often, despite it being demonstrably false. Post-truth, baby!

[cptsideways]

These are very popular here in the UK, they are rubbish at real world fuel economy though. Nice to drive & go well but it requires some serious technique to get good economy from them Fuelly suggest 47mpg (imp) average which for a 1.0l small car is hardly ground breaking.

[oldtamiyaphile]

I've been thinking about a 1l Ecoboost for my 49 Ford. The cylinder deac makes them even more interesting, though I have my doubts as to the real world benefits and possible eventual repair costs (Honda have issues with their V6 system).

Downside is these engines are no fun to drive for economy. You can't use the usual BSFC approach, you really just need to drive as slowly as you can bare. You can't stay out of boost as you're already at peak boost at ~1200rpm.

I think a more sensible approach would be to use an electric supercharger, that could be deactivated when not needed. Possibly you could fit a bigger exhaust driven turbo that would allow for some off boost driving, but turbo lag is of course never fun.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Not sure if that would be so wise to fit the 1.0L Ecoboost into an old truck, even though it's lighter than a modern one.

Originally Posted by MJamson

There are numerous examples of having where having a bigger engine and paying more tax yeilds fuel savings and overall lower costs.

The same goes here in Brazil. A lot of cars, SUVs, and even some pickup trucks, end up getting clearly underpowered engines in the local market while their export counterparts bounded to Argentina get engines more suitable to their weight. Sure, backing those bigger-displacement engines with taller gearing to allow lower revving at cruise is the most noticeable advantage.

[123gts]

FYI, the current 1.0L turbo Fiesta with manual transmission is EPA rated at:

- City: 31 mpg US
- Hwy: 41 mpg
- Combined: 35 mpg

If you look at the 2014-2016 Fiesta triples on Fuelly, it looks like owners are reporting around 37 mpg US.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

WOW if that's all it gets I am not impressed. I get that in a 2012 Mazda 3 2.0L SkyActiv. The Mazda 3 is also an automatic. The Mazda has gotten around 50mpg on a long trip on the HWY and that's zero Hypermiling, just not driving it hard or fast.

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Not sure if that would be so wise to fit the 1.0L Ecoboost into an old truck, even though it's lighter than a modern one.

The F1 starts at 1445kg and if you take out the cast iron engine, gearbox and diff, you could get that down to ~1200kg which is only a fraction heavier than a Fiesta (or EcoSport) and lighter than a Focus (where the engine is offered in Europe). Aero is worse, but the frontal area isn't too bad with that narrow cabin. More power and torque than stock, but tunable up to 200hp on stock internals. 200hp for 1200kg would do me nicely, especially if teamed with 40mpg.

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by 123gts

WOW if that's all it gets I am not impressed. I get that in a 2012 Mazda 3 2.0L SkyActiv. The Mazda 3 is also an automatic. The Mazda has gotten around 50mpg on a long trip on the HWY and that's zero Hypermiling, just not driving it hard or fast.

My 875cc Fiat is sitting on 50mpg while Fuelly cars are averaging high 30's, we could talk about 'this one time' all day long. My 2 ton van will cruise along happily at 50mpg too. Keep in mind a lot of Fuelly users don't know how to input MPG data either.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

The F1 starts at 1445kg and if you take out the cast iron engine, gearbox and diff, you could get that down to ~1200kg which is only a fraction heavier than a Fiesta (or EcoSport) and lighter than a Focus (where the engine is offered in Europe).

But would you be willing to convert it to FWD in order to save weight in the transmission setup?