Ford testing cylinder deactivation with 1.0L turbo 3-cyl Ecoboost engine: 6% gain
 

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1431545920

OK, you know things are getting serious when they start investigating cylinder deactivation in a triple.

Ford says they've been doing on-road testing of rolling cylinder deactivation in their 1.0L turbo, with a series of countermeasures to manage NVH:

The results: Fuel efficiency improvements of up to 6 per cent

The "rolling" deactivation approach means each cylinder takes turns being the deactivated one.

Source: Green Car Congress: Ford exploring cylinder deactivation for 1.0L EcoBoost; testing shows up to 6% fuel efficiency improvement

And Ford: https://media.ford.com/content/fordm...enhancing.html

hmm a modern hit and miss engine. :)

Put a big enough flywheel and muffler on it, and nobody'll be any the wiser!

I must say I'm surprised by the 6% figure. Seems high to me considering that 1.0L engine still wants higher engine load on a Focus even...

Every time I drive the T-Racer with it's 2.0L I think, "This car has waaaay too much engine"!

The 1.8L Civic gave me the same reaction. I have never said the same thing about the Firefly/Metro though!

With Metros I drop the "waaaay" but I think a 2-cyl Metro would suit me just fine; that is, if it gives me enough fe improvement.

Direct water injection on off cycles could recover even more free FE

Instead of making these damn cars harder to work on/diagnose, how about just more aerodynamic? That 6% will never pay for itself when it takes me an extra 2 hours to diagnose an engine misfire problem and I charge you 90$ an hour for labor.

Looks like greencarcongress has a comparison of fixed cylinder deactivation versus rolling deactivation on Fords 1 liter triple. NVH, complexity and cost balanced in the comparison. Looks like fixed is winning out in the cost and complexity without loosing too much gains in mpg. I'm not a fan of using dual mass flywheels because they fail often and at great cost in the used car market. They use them to help overcome the shakes.

Try $120 to 160 in the Bay Area. but diagnostics are normally a flat fee

I like the idea of more Aerodynamic, but the devil is in the style details. Pure Aero takes away a little to much artistic freedom for the designer, and the car still needs to appeal and sell to the masses. At the moment that means the option to incorporate individual choices on wings, headlights, front and rear bumper covers, graphics, etc.

Why wouldn't they just deactivate all cylinders together for short bursts of time?
Add a capacitor bank and a generator/motor flywheel IMA style, dump the alternator and starter motor; it would be like a mini hybrid but without the extra weight.

Unlike a normal hybrid it would pulse on and off in quick succession; charging the capacitor banks when running on gas, depleting them when not.

Dual Mass Flywheels are popular on diesel cars but do have a tendency to self destruct. It's one of several technologies that negate the fuel savings of diesel with huge repair bills. The Pendulum Absorber is something I hadn't heard of before but is in the same class.

It really is a false economy to produce super-economical cars that in reality have only a short life.

Interesting, "hardware-wise" you've just describe the 2013/14 Toyota Yaris Hybrid R concept vehicle, but that's a racing setup where the front is fueled power and the rear wheels are electric hub motors connected to large fast discharge capacitor banks. Unlike the pulse concept the extra electric power forces the car for maintain traction and stability at high speeds and around road course turns.

Since there is a real possibility a 400 hp engine come overwhelm vehicle control at WOT, the rear electrics engage to force the car back to straight and under control. I guess that's a pulse concept, but I think it powers the electric up only in the event of loss of stability. The same concept is used by Ferrari and other in CAM Am international type racing.